THE ABORTION ISSUE IN PARLIAMENT:

ABORTION DEBATE ALREADY RE-OPENED

by Amy Good

Langley Advance January 15, 2009

Dear Editor,

Your article [No abortion debate: MP, Jan. 6, Langley Advance] indicates that Langley MP Mark Warawa does not believe that now is the time to re-open the abortion debate in Canadian Parliament.

As a young adult in Canada, I would like to ask our MPs when a good time to open the abortion debate might be?

I have a funny feeling that, in a month, a year, or maybe even two years, the answer would be the same: "Now is not the time to re-open the abortion debate."

It is apparent that "the abortion debate" does not need to be re-opened; that already happened after awarding Henry Morgentaler with the Order of Canada.

Amy Good, Vanier, Ontario

THE ABORTION ISSUE IN PARLIAMENT:

I'M BEHIND BRUINOOGE: LETTER TO THE EDITOR

by Sean McIntyre
Red Deer Advocate, January 10 2009

Dear Editor:

I want to say publicly how happy I am that Canadian member of parliament Rod Bruinooge has stepped out, and taken a public stance to re-open an intelligent national debate on the issue of abortion as it stands in our nation. He represents a huge number of Canadians who object to Canada's total lack of legislation regarding abortion since 1988. 

I commend Mr. Bruinooge for his stance, and his willingness to put his name as a Canadian MP on the line, to be a voice for the voiceless in Canada. He is a rarity as a openly pro-life candidate, and serves as an inspiration to not only his constituency of Winnipeg South, but to all of Canada as someone who stands up for what he believes in when it counts. I want to thank Mr. Bruinooge for being brave enough to address this emotionally charged issue. We can only hope that more MP's will accurately represent the will of their own constituents, by representing their views on abortion as the debate for the unborn resurfaces in this country. Many Canadians are not happy with their government's lack of regulation and blind eye approach to abortion for over 20 years. 

Mr. Bruinooge, who now serves as the recently elected chair of the Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus, aims to be an “advocate for the unborn and seek to have their value restored in my Canada.” He has my support, and respect.

Copyright 2009

THE ABORTION ISSUE IN PARLIAMENT:

POLITICIANS CAN DEAL WITH MULTIPLE ISSUES

by Sarah Sonne
Guelph Mercury, January 13 2009

This week Conservative Members of Parliament Mark Warawa and David Sweet have released statements to the press that "now is not the time to re-open the abortion debate" and that "Canada should focus on the economy as a priority."

With all due respect, it has always been Parliament's job to discuss multiple issues at the same time. Until now, the government has managed to debate and legislate the economy as well as international affairs, justice, health, and multiple other issues at the same time. This is how a nation is run. Is the government saying that because the economy is more challenging this year than it was last year that we are not going to talk about the 800 plus women that are imported to Canada annually for the sex trade either? If we cannot talk about an issue like late term abortions, how are we able to talk about infrastructure or education? We have a justice committee, will their priority be the economy as well?

There is never a good time to talk about something that is uncomfortable. But to say that the government only has the capacity to discuss one issue at a time is a poor excuse. Especially when Canadians have been hearing the "not now" excuse for 40 years.

Copyright 2009

ELECTION
A MISSED OPPORTUNITY

by Chris Wright
The National Post, December 6 2008

By literal definition, the office of prime minister is meant to be held by the one who is the chief servant in Canada, who cares for the nation and the greater good of its citizens. Surely the rhetoric of the past days from the opposition leaders can be clearly seen for what it is: not concern for the economic state of the nation, but rather a selfish grab for power, previously withheld from them by the people of Canada themselves.

Calling another election will be expensive, but to acquiesce to the ghastly arrogant and self-serving agenda of the three opposition leaders would prove even more costly.

Copyright 2008

ISRAEL IN CANADIAN POLITICS

NATIONAL POST PRESENTS BALANCED VIEWS

by Chris Wright
The National Post, January 12 2009

I applaud the National Post for consistently presenting a variety of perspectives on relevant issues -- without adopting the unthinking, clearly biased status quo position often presented by other members of the media. It is refreshing to find an unflinching willingness to call Hamas terrorism what it is, and likewise reject the knee-jerk vilification of Israel. Similarly, in areas of Canadian politics, topics are handled even-handedly. This isn't to say the Post's writers' views always align with my own, and the adherence to the principles of free speech may mean enduring Colby Cosh's stupid article on abortion--but, for the sake of reading a newspaper that truly does present a balanced worldview, it is worth it.

Copyright 2009

This post has been removed.

AGE OF CONSENT RAISED, BILL C-22:

Bill C-22 Will Cut Canada's Sex Victims by Thousands

June 8th, 2007

by Aaron Graham, Edited by Faytene Kryskow

On May 4, Members of Parliament passed Bill C-22, which raises the age of consent from 14 to 16 years. Currently C-22 is on it's way to Royal Assent and, if passed in the Senate, could significanlty reduce the number of sex victims across the country. The passing of this legislation would also weaken Canada's reputation from that as a haven for sexual predators and place us in line with standards held by most other western nations on this issue.

Children and youth account for 61% of all victims of sexual assaults reported to police, and according to 122 police departments, there were over 9,000 child and youth victims of sexual assaults in 2003, 80% of the victims were female. Teenaged girls aged 14-to-17 accounted for 31% of all child and youth sexual assault victims and females aged 11-to-13 accounted for 23%.

In the United States, the age of consent in most states is either 16 or 18 years, while other countries such as New Zealand, Russia and the United Kingdom, have placed their age of consent at 16.

"Police point out that this low age is often known by sexual predators and encourages them to target Canada in search of younger victims who would not be able to consent in countries with a higher age of consent" said Hon. Vic Toews in a second reading. Another MP, Rob Moore, stated at the Justice Committee hearings that though the average Canadian may not know that the current age of sexual consent in Canada is 14yrs of age you better believe that most pedofiles do. Doug Cryer from the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada also pointed out in a recent conversation with on of our Members that a 40 yrs old man can have sex with a ‘consenting’ boy or girl but if that same 40yr old takes pictures of the act it is classified as child pornography. The incosistencies here are blatant. To give the youth of our nation an even greater slap in the face, the Canadian Government agreed with the UN Converntion of the Rights of Children’s definition of a child as anyone under the age of 18yrs. This means, currently in Canada, we are saying it is ok for adults to have sex with children. SICK is the only descriptive. Ask Donny Melanson, a Member of 4 MY Canada and a former boy-child prostitute on the streets of Vancouver. In Donny’s own words, “It is well known on the streets, the younger the sex partner the better.” What kind of Canada are we building? What kind of Canada are we maintaining? As youth and young adults in this nation we feel these are not only good but important questions.

Cybertip.ca is Canada's national tip line for on-line sexual exploitation of children. It is supported by the federal government under the national strategy to protect children from sexual exploitation on the Internet.

Cybertip.ca reported in March of 2005 that luring reports represented 10% of all reports received during its two year pilot phase. Of these reports, 93% of the victims were female and the majority, or 73%, were between the ages of 12 and 15 years. These reports indicate that individuals 14 and 15 years old are at greater risk of being sexually exploited through Internet luring and so we believe that Bill C-22 will enable police to more effectively protect youth aged 14 and 15 years from on-line predatory behavior." One pimp said it well, “There aint no rules, that’s why I win.” It is time to give our law enforcers some rules to work with so that sicko-s like this have less to ‘play’ with.

"This issue has often come before us and, as in the past, I hope that it will once again unite us in condemning adult sexual predators who prey on vulnerable youth, for this is what lies at the core of Bill C-22", said Hon. Ethel Cochrane in a Senate debate.

The legislative will we have seen in the House of Commons is encouraging and, for this, all concerned Canadians should be thankful. Unconcerned Canadians should become concerned. The safety of thousands of our Canadian youth is at stake. Hopefully the lure of summer picnics an party politics will not impeded force of reason and thereby stall C-22 from receiving royal assent speedily. If it is stalled there is a good chance some 14 or 15 yr old is going to have to pay the price this summer. Hopefully it will not be yours, nor the grandchild of some Senator that decided to go golfing instead of to committee.

Copyrighted 2007

TESTIMONY, LIFE:

MY LIFE IS A BLESSING

by Lee Harding

My mother was on the psychiatric ward while I grew in her womb in 1974. Her live-in relationship with my abusive and criminal father was over while her pregnancy meant new hurdles. Public shame for having a baby out of wedlock was one thing. A bigger question was how she could live as a single mom without a high school diploma.

The medical professionals counseled her to abort. In her heart, Mom wanted me. But she was vulnerable, and, so was I.

Elsewhere, her own mother was losing sleep. Grandma dearly loved the seven children she raised and was distressed over her daughter’s impending abortion.

The night before the scheduled abortion, Grandma had a dream so vivid she thought she was awake. She saw my mother as a little girl, playing with a doll. In the next scene her head was down, her arms empty. “Where’s your dolly?” asked Grandma.

With tears in her eyes, the little girl looked up and said, “They took it away!”

With shared resolve, my grandparents made the two-and-a-half hour drive from their little town to see my mom in Regina. Grandma wept so long, my grandpa couldn’t bear it any longer. “I’m going to put you in the hospital if you don’t stop crying,” he said.

After they finally made it to the hospital, Grandma said to Mom, "You really want this baby, don't you?"

“Yes, I do,” she replied.

With that, Grandma told the doctor, “This abortion is not going to happen.”

“But it’s been approved by the board,” the doctor protested.

“You can’t play God and neither can I,” Grandma said. “C’mon Debbie, we’re going home with our baby!”

So they took us home. A few days before Christmas, my mom returned to the hospital she left—to give me birth. True to their word, my grandparents took me after ten days and later adopted me. Grandma called me her little lamb and always said I was a gift from God. I stole Grandpa’s heart as well.

My birth mother still lives in Regina and has been married for many years, though not to my father. Now that I’m a married parent myself, my mom likes to take my little daughter out for walks in the stroller. She’s looking forward to my next child arriving in March. My birth father and his family also have a place in my life and count me a blessing.

Every once in awhile, as I reflect on the joy I have brought to my family, I’m horrified by the thought I could have been aborted. It’s not just that I would never have seen the light of day. It’s the void in my family where I was supposed to be, and the haunting grief they would still carry.

God is my only consolation when I grieve for the millions aborted in Canada in my lifetime. I count Him big enough to save the souls of the unborn and heal the hurts of the living.

Copyrighted 2007

FORCED TO CHOOSE: 

A LETTER TO THE DOCTORS OF CANADA 

from Cindy Lynne Kieffer

Thank you, for your service as a medical professional to the Nation of Canada. I am writing to you today to share my experience as a young woman during pregnancy. I would like you to know about this experience, so that when you are faced with situations such as mine, you will know a first hand account. I would like to share with you specific events during my time of pregnancy. These events begin with my first doctors appointment to the last time your colleagues were with me. Do not worry; I am not going to share nine whole months of experiences. I am only going to share one month.

On my first doctors appointment I went to see my family doctor but he was not available, so I was taken care of by an attending physician. I found out that I was pregnant. The physician did not talk to me too much about keeping the baby. He did however tell me I had to decide quickly if I wanted an abortion or not. I was confused and scared. He referred me to a gynaecologist. I went to the gynaecologist appointment within a week. He confirmed that I was eight weeks pregnant and he did not discuss pregnancy or childbirth beyond the basic fact that I was physically pregnant. However, he did say that he could book me an appointment to perform the abortion. He did not explain to me how the abortion would affect me or put me at risk. I was still in shock to find out that I was pregnant. I again was uneducated on either side of the issue, but I had to make a quick decision about what to do. I was leaving the doctors office both scared and confused, and then I saw on the wall a poster of the development of a baby. I stepped in to take a closer look and the gynaecologist stepped in front of me and said, "You don't want to look at that, it will only make you confused, and your decision harder." I was unable to think clearly because of the shock I was experiencing. In a daze I just walked out of his office thinking that he knew what was best. My life at that moment literally was in the hands of the professionals. Looking back now I do not understand why my decision had to be made so quickly and why I was not properly educated or cared for regarding this major decision.

One week after I left that doctors office I showed up to the hospital for the abortion appointment. I went into the pre-op room and had a friend with me. By this time I had just begun to process that I was pregnant and I began to change my mind. I knew that I wanted to be a mom. I tried to tell my friend but she got the nurse and they sedated me with drugs. I was so groggy that I was unable to stand up to them and could no longer tell them that I really did not want to have an abortion. The sedation began to wear off while I was in another room where I had been medically prepared for the abortion, but the doctor was late, so we were waiting for him. When I could finally speak and think clearly again the doctor had arrived and they were putting the gas mask on me. I began to fight. I tried to get out from under it. I was thrashing about so they had to hold me down, but I kept moving my head too much and they had to take the mask away to see what all the thrashing was about. I was trying to tell people again that I did not want the abortion. Instead of honouring my choice they held me back down and turned the mask up to sedate me. I heard someone say "cold feet" as I went unconscious. I woke up out of the anaesthetic screaming and crying out, "I just want to be a mom!" After being released from the hospital I had to be re-admitted three days later. They kept me in the hospital and treated me for a post-op/post trauma infection known as Endometritis.

In retrospect I can say that I was forced against my will. I was not cared for as a person by the doctors but seemed to be a drive-by victim of their precepts with no genuine regard for my own will. I know for certain I was not given all the facts that I needed to make a healthy choice; the following 9yrs I have lived are a proof of this. I am now beginning to share my story more openly, and I know that my case is not an isolated one and this too disturbs me. It seems the pro-choice perspective is not really interested in choice. I will always know I wanted to be a mother to that child. I do not know where you stand on these things or if you have the openness of mind to consider my story without writing it off as fanatical or freak, but I ask you now as a medical professional please remember my story as you perform your respected duties, and may it help you to make stronger decisions for a healthier Nation.

Thank you kindly,

Cindy Lynne Kieffer

Thank you for your time and your contributions to the health of all Canadians.

Copyrighted 2007

DOCTORS CHOICE ON PERFORMING ABORTIONS:

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION GIVEN UNPRECEDENTED POWER STARTING CANADA DAY

by Sarah Sonne

Human Rights Commissions continue to be at the forefront of issues facing Canadians today. Maclean's magazine is currently under-fire for an article they published about Islam called “The Future Belongs to Islam.” In the article, the author summarizes some of his interviews with Muslim leaders and explains how the population boom of Islamics compared to the extreme decrease in the size of western families is part of their strategy in gaining influence in the western world. The Canadian Islamic Congress promptly complained to the British Columbian, Ontario, and Canadian Human Rights Commissions that the article “could” cause people to become offended, and therefore “could” cause hatred against Muslims. Both Canada and Ontario rejected the complaint, citing that their Code was not broad enough to include articles in magazines, but British Columbia has brought the case to Tribunal.

No one who has ever had a complaint brought against them has won in a Human Rights Tribunal. If that's not scary enough, the Human Rights Commission in Ontario (the Commission responsible for completely changing the way faith-based businesses are run after the Christian Horizon's ruling) will be given unprecedented power within two weeks.

Starting July 30, 2008 there will be a number of significant changes to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The OHRC has given itself the power to initiate their own complaints and start their own investigations into what they may consider human rights violations. Practically, this means they do not have to wait for someone to complain that a Justice of the Peace would not marry a homosexual couple, the Human Rights Commission can go looking for people unwilling to perform gay marriages and when they find them, make their own complaint, and start their own investigation, and make their own ruling. It stands to reason that if they are the ones making the complaint, their investigation will be extremely biased from the beginning. The Ontario Human Rights Commission has given itself the power to be secret police and go looking for people they can prosecute.

The OHRC will now also have the right to interrupt and change cases before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, if they do not agree with what is happening or with a ruling that the Tribunal has made. This means that even if they are not involved in a human rights complaint being made, they still have the power to step in and decide what the verdict is.

As of July, the OHRC will also be engaging in “pro-active” measures such as public education, policy development, and research and analysis to further their own agendas. They will also “have the power to monitor the state of human rights and report directly to the people of Ontario.” This means that they can go into schools and businesses and promote their own views, regardless of religious freedom or freedom of speech. This will be seen directly in Christian Horizons, where the Human Rights Commission will be stepping in to "help" re-write Christian Horizons' policies regarding faith statements, and training the employees on “human rights” over their religious beliefs.

When a person files a human rights complaint, it will no longer go through the Commission but it will go straight to the Tribunal, and a new legal service called the Human Rights Legal Support Center will give legal support and services to anyone who files a complaint. This means there is no longer any screening service to complaints, and anyone who wants to file a complaint will be given legal advice on how to do it.The logic behind this is to "free up" more time for the OHRC to be pro-active in preventing human rights violations.

Every year, the Human Rights Commission used to have to file a report and submit it to the Attorney General for review. Now they do not have to be reviewed, but can submit whatever they want with direct access to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. They also have the “power to monitor and report on anything related to the state of human rights in the Province of Ontario” not just the cases they are involved in.

They also will have the power to review any new legislation that is passed in Ontario to make sure that it fits their definition of human rights.Thus it would appear that the OHRC has become the first and final say on anything involving human rights in Ontario and possibly Canada.

In short, this means that the Human Rights Commission of Ontario now has the power to police Ontario with no accountability, and with final say, unless the government steps in and stops them.

In May of 2008 MP Keith Martin tabled a motion (M-446) calling for a public examination of the Canada Human Rights Act and the Commission and Tribunal that stems from it. The motion calls on the Federal Government to hold public hearings across Canada into this matter. The motion and letter will enable all Canadians to see the current workings of the CHRA and offer solutions that will protect free speech, while protecting people from hate speech. It specifically calls for Section 13 of the Human Rights Act to be deleted, as this is the section being used to fine people for possibly inciting hate crimes by something they may have said. For more information contact:
Office of Dr. Keith Martin
613-996-2625
MartiK@parl.gc.ca

Action Points:

1) Write to your MP, the Justice Minister, and the Liberal and NDP justice critics to let them know of your support for an investigation into the CHRC.
2) Make an appointment this summer to meet with your MP face to face and talk about Human Rights
3) Write a letter to the editor or an article and submit it to your local and national newspapers
4) Pray for the government to have wisdom regarding the Human Rights Commission, protection over socially conservative and faith based groups in Ontario as of July 2008, and favour for everyone appealing a decision by the Human Rights Commissions across Canada.

Here is a brief summary of what the Human Rights Commissions across Canada have been ruling so far in 2008:

June 2008: Update on Reverend Stephen Boissoin. Following a six year trial, the Alberta Human Rights Commission has fined Rev. Boissoin $5,000 and ordered him to renounce his faith after he wrote a letter to the editor in 2002 expressing concern on homosexual agendas in the school system. Rev. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition have been ordered to publicly apologize to the gay community, never express opposition to homosexuality again, and renounce all previous statements on homosexuality. The HRC has not explained where the damage fee is going because there are no defined "victims" to pay the damage fine to.

June 2008: Catholic Insight Magazine has been burdened with $20,000 in legal fees so far defending itself against human rights complaints from homosexual activitists. In February of 2007, Pride Centre of Edmonton filed a human rights complaint against the monthly Catholic magazine, and 18 months later there has still be no word of whether the case will proceed past the investigation stage. The magazine is also coming under fire from a homosexual couple in Toronto who are attempting to get Insight's funding stripped from Heritage Canada's Publications Assistance Program. The magazine is paying its legal fees with support from donors.

May 2008: In Saskatchewan, Orville Nichols, a Regina marriage commissioner for 25 years, was found guilty of violating the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code for declining to perform a same-sex marriage three years ago. Nichols was fined $2,500 and asked to comply with with the Human Rights Code. If he refuses, he will lose his appointment as a commissioner. As a result of this case, The Human Rights Commission plans on asking every marriage commissioner if they comply with the legislation requiring them to marry same-sex couples. Although this does not affect clergy (they can refuse on the basis of religious beliefs under the Human Rights Code and Charter because they are a religious organization), civil marriage commissioners are required to perform marriages as a public service without religious content, and therefore if they are found in non-compliance they will lose their job.

April 2008: The Ontario Human Rights Commission ruled that Christian Horizons (a Christian care facility) pay former employee Connie Heintz $23,000 plus to compensation for 2 years of lost wages after she was let go because of a lesbian lifestyle, even though when hired she had signed an agreement declaring she was committed to living according to biblical values. The tribunal also found that a company cannot have two main focuses; therefore Christian Horizons cannot be both a care facility and a ministry, and so they cannot screen who they hire on the basis of lifestyle or make new employees sign a Statement of Faith contract. This has major implications not only for Christian Horizons but other faith based service organizations as well (eg. Salvation Army, Pro-Life Centres etc.).

DOCTORS CHOICE ON PERFORMING ABORTIONS:

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

by Sarah Sonne
The London Press, September 4 2008

The Ontario Human Rights Commission just threw its weight behind a draft being proposed by the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons that would force doctors to "check their beliefs at the door" and provide any medical service a patient desires, under the threat of being dragged into a Human Rights Tribunal. This is insane. When did doctors become a McDonalds drive-through, where we can order whatever we want and they are forced to give it to us, at the threat of losing their license, even if what we are ordering is not in our best interest? And how has Canada, a country which prides itself on diversity and freedom, become an endorser of head-hunting and religious persecution? After 11 years and $120,000 in Medical School, I think doctors have earned the right to say no. 

Sarah Sonne, Guelph

EINSTEIN ON BELIEF IN GOD:

RESPONSE TO EINSTEIN LETTER: BELIEF IN GOD A 'PRODUCT OF HUMAN WEAKNESS'

by Chris Wright
CBC, May 15, 2008

That Einstein did not believe in God is perfectly fair. With that, an unbiased perspective would also acknowledge that many others considered great minds throughout history were believers in and followers of the God of the Bible. An extremely abbreviated list could include: Soren Kierkegaard; Blaise Pascal; J.S. Bach; John Donne; Fyodor Dostoyevsky; Gerard Manley Hopkins; Dr. David Livingstone; Augustine; Francis Schaeffer; C.S. Lewis; George Washington Carver and Martin Luther King, Jr.

A similar contemporary list of scientists and scholars would only begin with such noted living doctors, philosophers and teachers as: Dr. Ben Carson; Dr. Gregory Boyd; Dr. John McRay; Dr. Bruce Metzger; Dr. Alexander Metherell; Dr. J.I. Packer, and many others.

An interesting point raised by Einstein's comment though, is that it is accurate to say that human weakness is connected to the belief in God, though perhaps for different reasons than he suggests. All through history it has been those men and women who have looked honestly at themselves and recognized their moral failings and inherent limitations - their weaknesses, despite whatever their own gifts, intellect and abilities may have been – who have agreed that their own self-righteousness was insufficient. Brilliant thinkers or not, it has been those who have adopted that posture of humility who have found peace, purpose, and meaning; it has always been those not too proud to acknowledge they have failed who have found forgiveness.

Chris Wright

Vancouver, BC

MP'S SPEAKING UP ON MORAL ISSUES:

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: BOLD STANDS REWARDED

by Sven Eric Johnson
Winnipeg Free Press, October 27 2008

I recently read a newspaper article about how the Conservative party did not gain a majority government this time. It might be due to having left some social issues, such as abortion and same sex marriage, undiscussed during the past federal election.

This theory , I believe, can be backed up by the voter turn out with Rod Bruinooge’s landslide victory in the Winnipeg South area. Bruinooge took the seat by a 4,000 votes in what used to be known Liberal territory. Not a bad margin, seeing that throughout his campaign he made it clear that he was taking a pro-life stand if he got elected. It seems to me that it was a good selling point, seeing how in the previous election he won against his Liberal opponent with only 111 votes.

So the question stands, would the Conservatives have won a majority had they spoken up on such issues as these? Nobody knows for sure, but I think if you look around at all those who boldly took a stand on these issues, you’ll probably notice that they are going to be pulling up a chair when it comes time for the House to sit again.

SVEN ERIC JOHNSON
Canwood, SK

MP'S SPEAKING UP ON MORAL ISSUES:

LETTER TO THE EDITOR RE: SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES LEFT OUT IN THE COLD

by Sarah Sonne
Ottawa Citizen, November 3 2008

I thank Rebecca Walberg for her opinion article. As a young, social conservative voter in Canada, I fully agree with Ms. Walberg that ignoring and isolating voters like myself because we have no other choice of who we vote for is costing the Conservative party.

I do not live in Winnipeg, yet I made the effort to volunteer for Winnipeg South MP Rod Bruinooge's campaign over the telephone, because he is one of the few MPs who is bold enough to be a social conservative voice and speak out on moral issues.

I voted and volunteered in six riding campaigns, because I am passionate about my country. But I personally know of many people who, at the last minute, decided to spoil their ballot or not vote after hearing that a Harper government would not encourage legislation that restricts access to abortion.

With polls showing 56 per cent of Canadians opposing Dr. Henry Morgentaler's Order of Canada, and 75 per cent of Canadians supporting the private Bill C-484 on protection for unborn victims of crime, it made no sense for the Conservative party to silence their MPs, whip votes on freedom of conscience issues, and ignore the majority of Canadians whom they are supposed to represent.

I am indebted to Mr. Bruinooge and other MPs who fight for my values. I hope that the "Bruinooge effect" as Ms. Walberg described affects Conservatives. Maybe then my friends will show up to vote, because they will actually have a voice in Parliament.

MP'S SPEAKING UP ON MORAL ISSUES:

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: FREE SPEECH MAY HAVE BEEN ONLY THING BETWEEN HARPER AND A MAJORITY

by Amy Good
The Edmonton Journal, October 24 2008

 

Re: "Free speech may have been only thing between Harper and majority: Tories have little to lose, much to gain from letting MPs speak their minds,"by In Rebecca Walberg, Opinion, Oct. 23.

It is very interesting how, in the 2006 election, Rod Bruinooge won by only 111 votes, and this time he won by more than 4,000 votes. It seems to me that people like to know whom they are voting for. When politicians are up front with where they stand the on the issues that are personally important to people, it takes the guess-work out of voting! I am pro-family and pro-life. If I lived in Winnipeg South, it would have been a no-brainer for who I would have voted for! Maybe the other MP's can learn a thing or two from Bruinooge's example.

ON UNIVERSITY CAMPUS:

HOPING FOR CHOICE

by Allison Kach
Guelph Mercury, November 6 2008

Dear Editor - A number of weeks ago, the student union at the U of G voted unanimously to remove club status from a club called Life Choice, arguing an incident last March violated the student union's policy. The club itself was not informed of discrepancies in their actions until they were told their status was cancelled. Where was the transparency and responsible communication on the part of the student government?

The issue of abortion has been heating up throughout the country, with controversial events such as Morgentaler's receipt of the Order of Canada, the subsequent returns of previously awarded Orders, bill C-484 and more. The issue is not settled in Canadians' hearts and minds and it is not going away, so denial of discourse and even educational resources to the public would seem foolish.

The student union has the opportunity to support students who hold a differing view, a view of life, or to deny the appeal of the Life Choice group to keep their status. This issue has been visited on a number of university campuses in Ontario and those standing for life have been labelled 'anti-choice' and rejected the support of student governments.If we are really serious about choice, we should be bold enough to allow people the opportunity to all available resources.

Will the U of G set a precedent by supporting groups that do not fit into the cookie-cutter mould of modern humanism, or will it silence voices and opinions of their own students to keep with the crowd? Let's trust they make the right choice.

COMPASSION REQUIRES ACTION:
DIVINE DUTY
by Sarah Sonne
Calgary Herald, November 1 2008

If you believe the Bible, you believe in a God who not only did not create or cause suffering, but a God that experiences suffering Himself. Jesus was a crisis teenage pregnancy, was born in a manger, grew up on the wrong side of town, knew hunger, pain, exhaustion and rejection, was ridiculed, tortured and put to death on a cross. There is a reality that even God suffers. And yet, He loves us so much that He is willing to do that. Understanding suffering and wanting it to end, He sends people like Dr. Chris Brooks to alleviate it. There is enough food, money and resources that no one should be suffering; the things happening around the world are proof of our own apathy, nothing more. We need more people like Brooks who recognize God's call and are moved to action.

DISCRIMINATION:
LETTER TO THE EDITOR RE: TESTING TESTING, BIGOT 1-2-3
by Craig Macartney
November 20, 2008

I've notice a few trends in our society. Often authorities are afraid of being seemingly racist so they go to extremes to try to make everyone happy. In doing so they often adopt other prejudice. The extent of our efforts (as Canadians) to make sure we do not appear racist has actually ended up building a degree of ethnic prejudice. For example: I worked with a group of people who always complained about Quebec and 'the French.' This was not because they were raised to hate French Canadians, it was a bitterness that came from how difficult it has become for people who don't speak French to find good paying jobs. They all felt that they were being discriminated against as English speaking Canadians while they said French speaking Canadians were more likely to get jobs in Government or around Ottawa.
I have seen similar bias in many areas and for the same reasons but I still believe that the statistics given from the online test are high, so I took the racist test referenced in the article. I found it was really set up with far too much room for error so that you appear racist. It asks you to sort pictures to the right or left, depending on whether the person is white or black and with words that are positive (ie: Joy) or negative (ie: horrible). Then it puts African AND Bad on one side and White AND Good on the other. You have to sort a mixture of faces and words to the right sides. After a while it flips them so that White and Bad are on one side and African and Bad are on the other. This change threw me off because you are supposed to do this fast. I got used to putting the African faces on the left and when it switched I was thrown off. The program reads every mistake that you make a bias against that group. In the end I was told that I am strongly racist against black people. This is totally wrong. I love African people. In fact, my biggest ambition in life is to go to Africa and set up orphanages and programs for the underprivileged and poor people there.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH:

UNIVERSITIES ARE STIFLING FREEDOM OF SPEECH

by Sarah Sonne
The Guelph Mercury, December 15 2008

Lakehead University in Thunder Bay has announced it is modifying its student union constitution to require campus clubs displays and publications to be positive in nature.

Effectively, this means environmental clubs cannot spread literature about the negative effects of oil spills on northern wildlife, NDP groups cannot publish brochures challenging Conservative policies, and pro-life groups cannot talk or distribute anything about their view on abortion. All negativity has been banned, at the expense of exploration and learning.

This is the latest development in a disturbing trend spreading through Canadian universities that directly threatens freedom of speech and hinders intelligent debate among people seeking higher education.

The University of Guelph recently revoked club status from its pro-life group, and Queen's University in Kingston announced it was introducing conversation facilitators to listen to conversations between students and encourage correct thought on social justice issues.

The irony of this seems lost on universities, which do not realize that in their attempt to make everyone think the same they are creating a new social injustice by restricting freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

Universities are supposed to be a place that presents information to students and allows them to form opinions, think for themselves and debate with others in an academic environment, not a place that forces every student to fit a certain mold through rules and policing.

The human right to not be offended is being used to take human rights away.

The last place I expected this to happen was university. As a graduate I sincerely hope this trend does not continue, because if it does, my university degree will mean next to nothing in a few years.

It will mean nothing more than proof that I learned to tell people what they want to hear, not that I learned to think for myself.

In the name of human rights, please bring the right to freedom of speech back.

It's an important one.

-- Sarah Sonne, Guelph

MORGENTALER AND THE ORDER OF CANADA: 

CANADA HAS NOT CONCEDED THAT THE DEBATE OVER ABORTION HAS ENDED

by Chris Wright
The Calgary Herald, July 2 2008

There appears to be a minority group in Canada intent upon convincing the rest of the nation that the issue of abortion has already been settled and that it has been universally accepted and approved. The questionable actions of the Supreme Court Justices seeking to award Dr. Henry Morgentaler the Order of Canada is yet another example of this. Those members of the committee involved are blatantly ignoring the expressed desire of the larger part of Canadians.

The fact that the vast majority of Canadians do not support this awarding of the Order of Canada to Morgentaler is irrefutable. A Globe & Mail national poll conducted in the spring of this year clearly revealed that the consensus of Canadians is far from unanimous affirmation, in fact, 92% of the over 330,000 Canadians surveyed did not believe that Dr. Morgentaler should be awarded the Order of Canada.

One is similarly reminded of the move of the student governments of institutions such as York University who have presumptuously declared that the debate over abortion has ended in Canada, and as such, are preventing open and intelligent discussion over the issue, in effect, disrupting free speech. Despite the actions of that student government, and despite the agenda of the few judges, the people of Canada have not agreed that these individuals' opinions represent those of the entire nation.

As is easily discerned by the results of the national poll, Canada has not conceded that the debate over abortion has ended. Currently there are some who seek to honour a man who most Canadians in no way consider a hero in our nation, nor someone who has contributed a lifetime of outstanding achievement in service to Canada or to humanity at large.

We who are Canadians believe that the actions of the leaders of our country should reflect the beliefs of its citizens, and Canada has clearly not agreed as a nation that abortion is right or admirable, nor that an abortion doctor should be so honoured.

MORGENTALER AND THE ORDER OF CANADA: 

GIVE HONOUR WHERE HONOUR IS DUE

by Faytene Kryskow

Like so many Canadians we were shocked to hear the news of Henry Morgentaler's appointment to the Order of Canada. As the director of an organization that represents thousands of young Canadians who are concerned about Canada on a variety of issues I want to say loud and clear: I wholeheartedly disapprove of this appointment. My reasons are multi-fold. Lets begin with the least obvious.

By his own admission on national television Morgentaler slimily confessed that he "enjoys women." In my circle (which is wide) we call these men "womanizers" or "creeps." The thought of giving a self-professing womanizer the Order of Canada gives me the heebie-jeebies. What message are we sending young Canadian men and women when we give the highest civilian honour to such a person? Seeing as Canada has an estimated 800 women a year lured into abusive sex trade jobs within our borders, this is a really good question. We hope it will be asked, loudly, before Morgentaler is pinned with this honour at some un-named date in the future.

The second reason is one that has already been raised by many across the nation: Morgentaler's appointment is a thorough insult to democracy. Included in the opening Canada Day remarks on Parliament Hill was an exhortation regarding the need to strengthen Canadaís democratic system. The speaker shared with thousands of Canadians how, in the last election, 75% of young Canadians did not vote. He went on to say that this needs to change. I wholeheartedly agree. However, how can you expect young people to get excited about participating in a system that consistently overrides the voice of the people?

Young people often say to me, "what difference will my vote make?" Well, leaders of Canada, give me something to work with, would you! (I use the word "leaders" broadly here as I know Prime Minister Harper had nothing to do directly with the Morgentaler appointment.) I would love to encourage my friends to vote. However, the announcement of the appointment today validates their skepticism. Why do I say this? A recent Globe & Mail poll declared that 92% of Canadians did not want the Morgentaler appointment to happen. Wow. That's a big number! A CBC Facebook poll only a year ago reported that the number one wish of young Canadians for Canadaís 140th birthday was for the ending of abortion in Canada. Do you remember that poll? We have not heard much about it in the media for some reason. Strange. And finally, there is the report that nomination protocol was totally overridden in this case. Every other person that has received the Order of Canada (from what I understand) has been appointed by unanimous consent. In spite of the fact that 92% of Canadians did not want this to happen, and there was a split on the advisory council itself, it happened. As I understand it, in an unprecedented maneuver the advisory council chaired by Chief Justice McLachlin rammed this through. What kind of justice is this?

I agree with the speaker today on Parliament Hill. We need to revive democracy. So, Canada, letís actually do it. Then maybe I could encourage my friends to vote and they would respond.

The final, and obvious reason, is that at the hands of Morgentaler's choice movement a trail of devastated lives lace the land. It is estimated that 8 out of 10 women who have had abortions struggle with suicide and that 98% of women polled would not recommend it to a friend (Elliot Institute). That speaks loudly. Is Morgentaler a hero to those 98% of women who regret their abortion? Canada is littered with chilling stories of women who were traumatized both emotionally and physically as a direct result of abortion. I had lunch with a lady just last weekend whose friend has two scars on the outside of her body from a botched abortion that destroyed her uterus. To hear of Morgentalerís appointment only days after hearing this story was a little too much to take. So take it, I won't. I am here to say that this was a terrible decision and it should be rescinded.

I feel badly for others who have received this award that has been so cheapened by the announcement of Morgentalerís appointment. I hope that they give their medals back and that none of the appointees on the list with Morgentaler show up to get theirs. THAT would be an amazing day for Canada.

To honour this man is to dishonour women who don't believe they are "meat." To honour this man is to dishonour a democratic system that we are (apparently) trying to revive. To honour this man is to dishonour countless women whose lives have been devastated as a direct result of abortion, not to mention 30-40% of my generation that never made it past the womb. Lets reserve honour for the ones who truly deserve it.

PS: My family, like Morgentaler's, was also in the holocaust - in the Ukraine. Ironically, because of him, now my generation is also.

Faytene Kryskow
Director, MY Canada Association

MORGENTALER AND THE ORDER OF CANADA:

MORGENTALER HASN'T BETTERED CANADA

Robin-Lee Pereda
Guelph Mercury, July 04, 2008

Of the many reasons Dr. Henry Morgentaler should not be appointed to the Order of Canada, none seems to jump out at me more clearly than the order's own motto: desiderantes meliorem patriam, meaning "they desire a better country." The millions a year his clinics bring in tells me he desires a little more than a "better country," and that's just the beginning.

Morgentaler performed abortions illegally from 1969 to 1988. He was charged on two separate occasions, and was convicted on one after the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned a jury acquittal. He served 10 months while waiting for the appeal of that conviction. My concern is this: what message are we sending to future generations if we honour someone who had such blatant disregard for our nation's laws?

Our laws and judicial system have served to protect its citizen and serve them since this great nation's inception. And now the same nation that laid charges against Morgentaler for disregarding their laws now seeks to honour him.

How does that even begin to make sense?

Not to mention it seems hypocritical for the Order to honour someone with such legal indiscretions seeing that one member -- Alan Eagleson -- was removed in 1998 after being jailed for fraud.

Regardless of which side of the abortion debate you sit on, you should be able to plainly see that we as a nation do not agree on this appointment to the Order of Canada.

Isn't the whole point of the Order of Canada to honour those who have made a prodigious contribution to Canada? Shouldn't it reflect our heartfelt thanks and gratitude as a whole nation, not just a fraction of it?

To honour Morgentaler in this way is to intentionally disregard the opinions of a large percentage of the nation.

-- Robin-Lee Pereda, Guelph

copywright 2008

 

MORGENTALER AND THE ORDER OF CANADA: 

IS CANADA REALLY A DEMOCRACY?

by Sarah Sonne


On September 29th, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that the Conservative government will never re-open the debate on abortion, and if bills are tabled that would lead to the re-criminalization of abortion, he will whip his cabinet to oppose them. This is somewhat ironic considering the debate on abortion has been wide open ever since it was announced on Canada Day that Henry Morgentaler would be receiving the Order of Canada, to which Harper vocally disapproved of as something that divides Canadians.

Both Harpers announcement, and Morgentaler’s ceremony to receive the Order of Canada this Friday, throw serious doubt on whether Canada is a democracy at all. By whipping his cabinet, Harper is doing the same thing that he disapproved of Chief Justice Beverly McLaghlin doing; that is, over-riding the voice of an individual to achieve an agenda. If that is the case, why have a cabinet at all?

Secondly, with 56% of Canadians disapproving of Morgentaler’s nomination, Canada saw a flurry of debate in the national media after July 1st that made one thing very clear; Harper was right, Canada is severely (and passionately) divided on the issue of abortion. This is further proven by the fact that the Governor General is traveling to Quebec City this Friday to present Morgentaler with the Order of Canada on a holiday weekend and on the eve of an election, with no announcement, when all eyes are diverted and watching other things. Sound like a repeat of Canada Day? Could it be that the ceremony is taking place in Quebec because Quebec is the most supportive province of abortion, and it is unlikely anyone will kick up a fuss there?

Why is it that in a so-called democracy, we have to sneak around and whip votes in order to silence the voice of a growing sector of society? If Canada’s mind is already made up, why have an election at all?.

MORGENTALER AND THE ORDER OF CANADA:

A BIRTHDAY QUESTION FOR MR. MORGENTALER
by Faytene Kryskow

Friday, October 10th, is my birthday – the emphasis being on birth. I am thankful I had the privilege of being born. If given a choice, that is what I would have preferred. I was shocked when I heard on Wednesday that October 10th this year, with suspiciously short notice to Canadians, will also be the day that Henry Morgentaler will be awarded the Order of Canada in deep, out of reach, Quebec.

I am sorry. I can’t call him a doctor. I don’t know anyone he has healed. I don’t know any life he has actually saved. In contrast, a few weeks back I had my nails done by a sweet young lady who almost died on the floor of an abortion clinic. She didn’t need to get consent, so her parents weren’t there to support her. She was alone. The nurses had forgotten to give her an anesthetic (so much for compassion) and during the ‘procedure’ she got a blood clot that sent her into convulsions and near death. She told me that she writhed on the floor – alone and feeling every bit of the pain - as the nurses watched not knowing what to do. She has been on nerve pills ever since because of anxiety attacks. On my birthday I wonder if I could ask Mr. Morgentaler a question? If this is about compassion for women why don’t you give up the multi-million dollars you make ever year from it and put it towards helping women like this put their lives back together. To honor Mr. Morgentaler is to dishonour the thousands of women whose lives have been shredded through ‘safe’ abortions that are anything but safe. It is time to wake up Canada and call a spade a spade – or a knife a knife.

 

MORGENTALER AND THE ORDER OF CANADA:

CANADIAN VOICES AREN'T BEING HEARD

by Amy Good

St. Catharine's Standard October 15, 2008

As a young Canadian, I consider myself very privileged to live in a democracy like Canada. There has been so much encouragement with the recent election to "make your voice heard" by voting.

But I'm feeling disappointed by the lack of voice I feel I have today. On Oct. 10, the highest civilian award in Canada was given to Dr. Henry Morgentaler. This might not be upsetting to most Canadians, however it should be.

This award is designed to unite Canada. Since the announcement of his appointment was made on Canada Day, several articles disagreeing with Morgentaler receiving the Order of Canada have been published, expressing disappointment in giving this award to Morgentaler.

How loud does your voice have to be in Canada before it gets heard? Is it any surprise why many Canadians didn't vote? Maybe we should look at why they feel their voice doesn't make a difference.

I know that is how I am left feeling

Amy Good

Jordan

VIOLENCE AGAINST PREGNANT WOMEN:

PREGNANT WOMEN DESERVE PROTECTION FOR THEIR FETUSES

by Amy Good

Montreal Gazette August 9, 2008

As a young woman in Canada, I would like to express my gratitude to Ken Epp for introducing Bill-C484. It is very disturbing to think that if I became pregnant in Canada there are no laws to protect my wanted child. However, if someone injured my cat I could press several different charges against the offender. It is pretty ridiculous that as a Canadian citizen I can protect my cat, and or my possessions, but there is nothing in Canadian law that says I have the right to protect a wanted child.

The only ridiculous thing about this bill is that we haven't spoken up about this issue sooner.

Amy Good

Vanier, Ont.

VIOLENCE AGAINST PREGNANT WOMEN:

 

QUIT SPECULATING AND LOOK AT THE VALUE OF BILL C-484

by Amy Good
St. Catherines Standard September 5, 2008

I would like to say that as a young woman (who is looking forward to being pregnant some day), I am so grateful for Ken Epp's Bill C-484.

Epp has collected countless stories of horrendous crimes that have been committed against pregnant women. Out of these atrocities, Epp has seen the need to table Bill C-484. If a crime was committed against a pregnant woman carrying a wanted child, there are no laws to protect this woman's choice to be pregnant. Instead of all of the speculation that is being made about Epp's or the Conservatives' ulterior motives to bringing this bill forward, why aren't we questioning the ulterior motives of the pro-choice organizations that are not getting behind this bill? If the motive is truly the political and ethical view that a woman should have complete control over her fertility and pregnancy, then what part of Epp's bill do they really have a problem with?

Amy Good, Jordan

VIOLENCE AGAINST PREGNANT WOMEN:
A FIGHT FOR FETAL RIGHTS
by Ashley Beaudin
The Charlatan, Feb 28, 2008

The recent bill, Bill C-484, introduced Feb. 29 by Conservative MP, Ken Epp (Edmonton - Sherwood Park) is expected go to the floor of the House of Commons for its second hour of debate.

This bill, also known as the Unborn Victims of Crime Act would create “a separate offence when an unborn child is harmed or killed during the commission of an offence against the child’s pregnant mother.”

As a young woman and part of a generation that will soon emerge as mothers and fathers, I believe that this amendment to the Criminal Code is critical.

Today’s society has come to hold a large amount of concern for progression in human rights.

Unfortunately, in Canada this concern is rarely met with action. We have an opportunity to see a bill enacted that will raise the bar in both women’s and children’s rights. This bill can act as a strong disincentive to violence against pregnant women and will help protect the health and safe delivery of every child.

Notably, in the United States 37 states have fetal-homicide laws. But in Canada charges can be laid only if the baby has left the womb.

This is a grave and unwarranted injustice that we must address nationally.

Currently, if an attacker kills a pregnant woman and her child, no charges can be laid to recognize the fetal victim. This leaves the families of the victim, who are left grieving the death of two lives with a feeling of injustice.

One supporter, Mary Talbot, lost her daughter Olivia who was six months pregnant when she was killed. Her killer admitted that he shot Olivia in the torso to kill the baby and yet there is nothing in our Criminal Code that recognizes his intent to harm this unborn child.

Legally, we have given more protection to animals than to an unborn human child. Under current Canadian law, animal abusers can receive up to six months in prison, and new legislation might increase this to five years. This blatantly says that we value the life of an animal more than a human life.

We have protected, and shown commitment to continue to protect, the rights of animals.

Let’s do the same for our children and make protection accessible to unborn children.

Understandably, pregnant women are vulnerable. There is something in the heart of a woman that compels her to protect her child.

But when an attacker imposes on that defence and receives no consequence for that action, society affirms in public policy and in law that such violence is OK.

When a mother chooses life for her child, that child —unborn or not —should be protected under law.

A woman and a child are indeed within the same physical body, but are two separate lives. It seems ridiculous to charge an attacker with one account of homicide when it took two separate lives.

In some cases, an attacker attacks a pregnant woman for her baby. When the attacker is only charged for the case of the mother, society affirms the intention of the attacker under the reasoning that the life of the fetus was insignificant.

We cannot send a message to our children that the nine months of greatest intimacy with their mothers in the womb is trivial and of no importance.

Objectors to the bill have said this law will affect abortion rights; however, this is not the case. This law specifically states that the bill will not apply to any act of omission by the mother of the child, meaning that the mother could not be charged under this legislation for terminating her pregnancy.

While preliminary polls have shown that Canadians are divided on this issue, we should rather unite for the purpose of protecting our children.

Let’s be known as a society that defends the vulnerable and cares for the unborn. They are worth dignity and salvation and deserve to be guarded.

VIOLENCE AGAINST PREGNANT WOMEN:

WE PROTECT ANIMALS BETTER THAN WE PROTECT UNBORN CHILDREN
by Ashley Beaudin
The Standard, St. Catharine's May 2008

As a young woman in Canada, Bill C-484 - due to go to a parliamentary committee - has demanded my attention. Bill C-484 makes it a legal offence for an unborn child to be either killed or injured during the commission of an offence against the child's pregnant mother. To a generation that will quickly emerge onto the forefront as mothers and fathers, I believe this bill is critical.

We have an opportunity to see a bill enacted that will raise the bar in both women's and children's rights. This bill can act as a strong disincentive to violence against pregnant women and attest to the health and safe delivery of every child.

This bill has been opposed in the name of giving women choice. But we find the lack of this legislation is a direct attack on a woman's power to choose. A woman is choosing to receive her baby and if she is attacked, suffers a loss of the baby she is carrying and is unable to see any legal action made, that is a degradation of her choice. Currently and legally, if an attacker kills a pregnant woman's child, no charges can be laid.

Legally, we have given more protection to animals than to an unborn human child. This blatantly says that we value the life of an animal more than a human life. Let's do the same for our children and make protection accessible to the unborn child.

I speak to every father, every mother, every young man and young woman, let's not be known as a society that failed to protect the unborn from crime. Rather, let's be known as a society that sought justice and did not give up until it was found.

Ashley Beaudin
Smithville

Copyrighted 2008