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

VIOLENCE AGAINST PREGNANT WOMEN:

BILL C-484

by Ashley Beaudin
London Free Press, March 28 2008

Bill C-484 should grant national attention The recent bill, Bill C-484, introduced Feb. 29 by Conservative MP, Ken Epp (Edmonton - Sherwood Park) passed its second reading and is expected to go to the Justice and Human Rights Committee.

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."

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. Notably, in the United States thirty seven states have fetal-homicide laws. But in Canada charges can be laid only if the baby has left the womb. Canada has an opportunity to take a stand for progression and protection; advancing even beyond the world's biggest superpower.

A woman and a child are indeed within the same physical body, but are two separate lives. It seems discriminatory 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 are looking at an issue of women's rights. Canada has been applauded for giving an equal voice to all people and being a land of choice. Yet 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 beginning to establish a family. When a woman 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. It also expresses the message that the choice never belonged to her as the baby was taken from her by human hands without any legal repercussions. When a mother chooses life for her child, that child - unborn or not - should be protected under law.

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. The presence of this legislation must be demanded by every man and woman. As, the lack of such legislation could be argued not only as a human rights issue in regards to the rights of women and children but also a discriminatory offense against the pregnant women of our nation. The issue here is not one of politics and debate, rather of justice and consequence.

Let's simply by known as a nation who determined to unite for the purpose of protecting our children, rather than be found fighting in the complexity and hype of political agendas that may or may not be affected. We can be a society that defends the vulnerable and cares for the lives of our children.. They are worth dignity and merit our defence.

Copyright 2008

VIOLENCE AGAINST PREGNANT WOMEN:

UNBORN VICTIMS: A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
by Ashley Beaudin
The News, Mississauga April 1 2008

Dear Editor:

The recent bill, Bill C-484, introduced Feb. 29 by Conservative MP, Ken Epp (Edmonton - Sherwood Park) passed its second reading and is expected to go to the Justice and Human Rights Committee.

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."  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. 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.


A woman and a child are within the same physical body, but two separate lives. It seems discriminatory to charge an attacker with one count of homicide when two lives were taken. When a mother chooses life for her child, that child – unborn or not – should be protected under law.  Objectors to the Bill have said this law will affect abortion rights: Not the case. This law states the bill will not apply to any act of omission by the mother of the child, meaning the mother could not be charged under this legislation for terminating her pregnancy.


The presence of this legislation must be demanded by every man and woman. The issue here is not one of politics and debate, but rather of justice and consequence.
Copyright 2008

VIOLENCE AGAINST PREGNANT WOMEN:

BILL C-484 NEEDS ATTENTION

by Ashley Beaudin
Niagara This Week April 4, 2008


The recent Bill C-484, introduced Feb. 29 by Conservative MP Ken Epp (Edmonton-Sherwood Park), passed its second reading and is expected to go to the Justice and Human Rights Committee. 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."

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. Canada has an opportunity to take a stand for progression and protection; advancing even beyond the world's biggest superpower.

A woman and a child are indeed within the same physical body, but are two separate lives. It seems discriminatory 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 are looking at an issue of women's rights. Canada has been applauded for giving an equal voice to all people and being a land of choice. Yet 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 beginning to establish a family. When a woman 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. It also expresses the message that the choice never belonged to her as the baby was taken from her by human hands without any legal repercussions. When a mother chooses life for her child, that child -- unborn or not -- should be protected under law.

The presence of this legislation must be demanded by every man and woman. Let's simply be known as a nation who determined to unite for the purpose of protecting our children, rather than be found fighting in the complexity and hype of political agendas that may or may not be affected.

Ashley Beaudin

Smithville

VIOLENCE AGAINST PREGNANT WOMEN:

NO DANGER TO ABORTION RIGHTS

by Beck Poulsen

Montreal Gazette August 17, 2008

Joyce Arthur either doesn't know what she's talking about when she claims that Bill C-484 "negates the current 'born-alive' definition of a human being in the Criminal Code by prohibiting it as a defence. This in effect makes the fetus a human being, thereby jeopardizing abortion rights."

The bill clearly states that "It is not a defence to a charge under this section that the child is not a human being." This is proof that C-484 recognizes that the fetus is, in fact, not a "human being" in today's criminal law. How? By making it explicit that, in spite of it not being a "human being," it would be a crime to kill it without the pregnant woman's consent.

The Law Reform Commission of Canada, in its 1989 report, Crimes Against the Fetus, noted that criminal-law protection is not limited to persons. The Canadian Criminal Code already covers crimes against animals and dead bodies. Why can't we protect fetuses, though not "human beings," from third-party attacks against their mothers?

Beck Poulsen

Vanier, Ont.