An article by one of our Members, Ashely Beaudin, published in the Ottawa Citizen on April 17th, 2010.
Monday, April 19, 2010
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
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.
by Amy Good
Guelph Mercury, November 8 2008
It is appalling to hear that one voice is allowed while another is not.
Why and who decides what is and is not appropriate to be discussed in our schools?
As the letter writer stated, this issue of abortion in our country is not settled. People who are pro-life are not anti-choice. They are more concerned with an informed choice.
It actually surprises me that this debate is still going on. I am not sure what is left to debate about this issue. If you want to debate that God says that it is wrong that's fine.
You can't, however, debate with facts. Life begins at conception and this is a scientific proven fact.
I guess the real debate is whether people are willing to see abortion for what it really is, and that is murder of defenceless innocent babies that don't have a voice.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
You can read the new mandate of the Ontario Human Rights Commission on their website here.
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.
For practical ways to support Mr. Boisson as he attempts to get his case appealed, please visit his websites here.
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.).
For more on Freedom and Persecution, please visit the Informed Freedom page on MY Canada's website here.
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
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
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 legis
lation 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
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
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
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
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 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHOICE AND EDUCATED CHOICE
by Amy Good
January 28 2009
January 28 2009
As Vicki Saporta states in her article Access to Abortion Still Patchy in Canada, "today marks the 21st anniversary of R. v. Morgentaler, the Supreme Court ruling that decriminalized abortion in Canada. This landmark decision has undoubtedly protected the health and saved the lives of countless women...". As a woman I would like to bring a different perspective. There is a lot of research and statistics that show abortion is linked to an increase in mental health problems, suicide, depression, substance abuse, anxiety, sleep disorders, symptoms of post-traumatic stress as well as a link between abortions and breast and cervical cancer. That doesn't sound like Canada has "undoubtedly protected the health and saved the lives of countless women". For a group of women that claim to be "Pro-Choice", these women should be educating all the aspects of abortion, however it appears that "Pro-Choice" is more about pushing an agenda, then a genuine care and concern for a woman's educated choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)