Townhall Canada

Why Leona Dombrowsky Lost in Prince Edward-Hastings

2011-10-07T07:07:00.000-07:00

by Neal Ford

Education Minister Leona Dombrowsky went down to a decisive defeat in her riding of Prince Edward Hastings on Oct. 6th. This should send a clear message to minority premier Dalton McGuinty that it is time to scrap the EIE ( the LGBT driven Equity and inclusivity in Education) program introduced by his government. Prince Edward-Hastings is a riding that is usually pretty loyal to its incumbents, provided they have served reasonably well. Leona Dombrowsky was avaialble to her constituents, and generally people were not angry with her, per se. Prince Edward Hastings is also a riding where social conservatives have some large numbers, and they were less than thrilled by her , in her position as Minister of Education supporting and promoting EIE. Mr. Premier, please take note.
There were other issues that hurt her, one being her government's "green energy" program, which has sent electricity bills skyrocketing in already tough times, and which have added substantially to the province's debt as they follow their ideologically-driven pursuit of a "green economy." Mr. McGuinty should take note of that as well when considering the wind farms in Price Edward County and the solar and other innefficient and not cost effective boondoggles they were planning for Marmora.

2009-08-24T10:41:00.000-07:00

Honour Killings: We'd Better Understand

This girl is in hiding, terrified that she will be a victim of a so-called "Honour Killing". In this video she broke down saying that we don't undrstand. We had better understand that radical Islam does mandate (not permit, but REQUIRES) such extreme action for apostasy, and is often carried out for other things, such as adultery, or even minor matters which bring shame to the family.
Her parents want her returned to them, but she knows they will kill her if she is sent back. She also points out how widespread the practice really is. Here is a recent case that took place in Canada.
We need to wake up here in thewest. As more and more Muslims come to our countries, the demands grow for Sharia law to be permitted alongside our own law in matters pertaining to "internal Muslim affairs". Eventually it will be the law of the land, if concessiona are made. I would notbe surprised if many so-called honour Killings" are covered up by simply telling the authorities that "she has gone back to (insert Islamic country of your choice) to be married. We'll let Fathima Rifqa Bary tell her story and make her plea. The world needs to know, not only that "honour killings take place here, but be made aware of the many that take place every single day in Islamic countries, many of which go unreported, since in those countries where sharia is applied, women are considered second class persons , if that.

2008-08-17T09:17:00.000-07:00

What Can Be Done To Promote a culture of Life In Canada?

Why is it that the pro-life movement in the United States is getting things done, and has some clout in society while Canada's is barely felt?

My observations on this have led me to draw some conclusions for which many will criticize me harshly, I'm sure, but need to be said, without sugar coating.

Socialism, secularism, and political correctness in Canada has bred a loser's mentality in many cases. I'm not speaking of all of us, but of a good many. Most of us , including myself sometimes slip into it.

The all-consuming drive to be number one, to push ahead, to innovate, to WIN seems much weaker in Canada than other countries. It seems to me the Canadian way is to "accommodate, back track, give in, be "tolerant" be "liked".

YUCK ! this is the kind of thinking our socialist public education and University system has helped breed. Just GO ALONG TO GET ALONG.

That is what has become, for many, the Canadian way, and that is why we don't have a strong netwok of pro-lifers like they have in the USA, and elsewhere.
Too many Canadians would rather be liked and not rock the boat than to get in the faces of the establishment and fight for what's right.

Too many minds have been numbed and poisoned by socialist pablum. Just go along, to get along....

Well, I'm sorry.... it just won't do. Just as our consistent Olympic mediocrity has less to do with funding than attitude, our loss of freedom and surrender to the culture of death has less to do with funding and resources than it does with attitude. Tell me what kind of money and temporal power did the early church have, yet that ragtag bunch changed the world.

Let's look at the homosexual lobby. It was not all that long ago that homosexuals cowered in the closet, and dared not assert themselves. Now? Their leadership has emboldened them to make a stand which 20 years ago, was very unpopular, and they got their noses bloosied along the way.

We can and must do the same. We can no longer be afraid to rock the boat and incur the contempt of some of our neighbours by making nicey-nice on issues of grave importance, such as the life and family issues.

Moreover, we must NOT keep our faith private, Jesus commissioned us all to go out into the world and spread the Gospel. He also said that we would be vilified by many for it. If enough of us do speak up, we will no longer be silenced.

That does not sound to me like "go along to get along."

Christianity is really a dirt under the fingernails faith, and it involves sustaining many cuts and bruises along the way. the question is, are Canadian catholics and christians prepared to step out and take a few punches, so that even one more soul can have eternal life and salvation? Or that even one baby will not be aborted?
Or do we just want to keep pretending that Jesus really wanted us to be sweet and nice and get along with the world?

I think we need to develop the Martyr's mentality in this country.

Is our faith in Christ deep enough that we might endure a bloody nose for it? That friends and family may turn our backs on us? That we may even face death?
Think about it. none of us are getting out of this alive anyway!

Could it be that we are so comfortable in our "palaces" (as compared to how our brothers and sisters in other parts of the world live) and love all our electronic gadgets too much, and value our own personal entertainment so much that we won't give a moments thought to matters of eternal importance?

Have we really become that self-centered and selfish?

How can we call ourselves Christians if we are not prepared to go all the way, like many of our brothers and sisters in Africa and Asia?
It is this kind of a wake-up call that Christians in this country have to hear and respond to if we are ever to get anywhere in terms of reconverting this spiritual wasteland.

And I will go one step further: If we won't do it, someone else will.

Yesterday, I found something in my mailbox. It was a glossy full colour double sided brochure that folded out so that there were 8 pages, called "Islam: the religion of Peace". These brochures must have cost somehwere in the neighbourhood of $0.50 apiece, and were delivered to every household in Belleville yesterday.
Islam is on the move, and the Saudis are funding these endeavours.

Where a vaccuum exists, something else is going to rush in to fill it. Christians have vacated the public square in order to "go along to get along". The secularists may appear to be winning now, but their philosophy and worldview is so devoid of any substance , meaning or answers to the eternal questions that man, by his very nature will ask, that they too have vacated the public square, though they do not know it.
I can assure everyone reading this, that the Muslims will not. They are doing with every ouce of their energy, what we shold be doing. They are spreading the word of islam with an evangelical zeal that we must not only match but exceed.

If we are to reawaken christianity in this land, we need to first of all kill political correctness and the "go along to get along" mentality that results.
We can do that only if we are prepared to step out and get banged up a bit. MARTYRDOM!

We must Catechize our young peopole. If we can't do it in the schools, then we must take responsibility at home. You can rest assured that the Muslims are doing it. Turn off the TV, and open the Bibles and cathechisms, and really talk as families.

We must remember that the ultimate goal is not this life, but the eternal life that follows, that will either be spent with Christ, or in eternal separation from Him. It's one or the other. There are no other options.

If we start living like Christians, meaning all out for God, and be prepared to, through the courage only he can give us, face any adversity the world will throw at us, to the point of death, then Christianity can accomplish what it did in the past, and the idea of a just society will take care of itself.
But we must change hearts and minds. That means going all out in our faith, and not holding back. There will be a price to pay, but if we truly take pause to meditate on the reward that awaits us, we will be prepared to pay that price: Sell it all and buy the pearl of Great price! If people see passion and fire rather than Lukewarmness and death ( Revelation's Churches at Sardis and Laodicia) they will follow.

That is my view of what it will take. We need to wear our faith in public, no don't be a Holy Roller, but always be prepared to give the reason for your hope.

If we don't someone else will.

Mediocrity is not an option. Yopu don't hear our neighbours south of the border chanting "We're number 2!" .

Go all out, because it is really is or nothing, in any endeavour... but no endeavour has more lasting value or eternal consequences than the Great Commission.

2007-10-04T12:37:00.000-07:00

Abortion: A Matter of Human Rights (Right to Life) or Property Rights?

As many people are aware, the CBC held "The Great Canadian Wish List" on Facebook. Facebook members were asked to come in and register their support for one of the wishes listed, or create one of their own, with a feature story on the winning wish as of July 1st. When the Contest closed on July 1st, the number one Wish one the list was "abolish abortion" and it beat out "keep abortion legal" by a significant margin. I took a peek at what the poor choicers were saying on "keep abortion legal". Almost to a person, they consider the pro-life movement to be a bunch of religious fanatics, or an intrusion on their rights by the church (which church?) or an affront to separation of Church and state Nothing an be further fom the truth, and I will illustrate my point by coming at the life issue from a non religious perspective.

Allow me to tell a story that will illustrate the non-religious background in which I initially came my pro-life views. I used to be a member of the Libertarian Party. I ran in two elections (1988 and 1993) and at that time, I had never darkened the door of a church. I even ran for the leadership of that party. Nevertheless, I always opposed abortion. This may be partly because I am here only on account of a 16 year girl who made a tough decision to stay the course, at a time when "good girls didn't" and then give me up for adoption. Her choice, of which I was told by my adoptive parents very early on in life, taught me the intrinsic value of life.

In any case, there was a time when many if not most Libertarians held the view that the right to life was the foundation on which all other rights stood or fell, and many believed, correctly, that life began at conception, and that to allow abortion made a mockery of the whole concept of rights, let alone the right to life. Moreover, Libertarians also held to the view that one should not coerce others to pay for their actions, to wit, no welfare for those who choose not to work, no taxpayer bailouts for corporations who displayed fiscal irresponsibility, and that it followed that one could not use the life of an unborn child as the currency by which they could buy their way out of responsibility for their actions. When one engages in sex, contraceptives notwithstanding, the possibility of pregnancy nonetheless exists. By engaging in sexual relations one iscognizant of the fact that they are running this risk, so they should either accept this fact, and live with the result, or abstain, if they wish to avoid the risk entirely.

Sadly, the Libertarian movement has changed over the years, and it has been taken over by people who see property rights as trumping all others, that property rights, Many in broader society have also bought into this lie. In this case the "property" is one's body, trump the right to life. however, the right to life is the foundation from which all other rights are derived. If someone can take the life of another and not be held accountable, then it really was not a right at all, but rather a privelege that exists only at the whim of someone stronger. This is what we call the law of the jungle.

Property rights , in and of themselves are limited by servitudes or eminent domain, or other restrictions which deny absolute control for the sake of the greater good. For example, the authorities will step in if you put pesticides on your front lawn, because the harm to the environment, its ecosystems, and by extension, even people in the vicinity. By the same token, prior to adding on to your house, or erecting other permanent structures on your property, you must obtain permission from your municipality to do so, so that it can be ascertained that what you proposeto build is not a hazard or an eyesore to others. There are also zoning laws, so that no one can open a strip club on your nice residential street. So if you look upon the idea of the "right" to do whatever one wishes with their own body as an extension of property rights, you can see that because the rights of someone else are being infringed in (and in the worst possible way, In the case of an unborn child), we step in to defend their right to life, which, as I've pointed out trumps all other rights. With all rights, come responsibilities.

Today the libertarian movement is for the most part, pro-"choice", with the only restriction being that taxpayers not be required to pay for it. I know some people who argue, that there can be no restrictions on the point up to which an abortion can be performed, since, as her body is her "property" to dispose of as she wishes, she may, at any time, withdraw her consent for the baby to occupy her body. The result has been that most pro-lifers have left the Libertarian movement. The most notable case is the case of Dr. Ron Paul, who was the US Libertarian Party's Presidential nominee in 1988. Today Dr. Paul, a pro-life OB-GYN, sits as a Republican Congressman from Texas, and is currently in the running for the Republican Presidential nomination. (For the record, Dr. Paul is the only Presidential candidate, of either party that opposes the death penalty).

So if one accepts the premise that the right to life is the foundation on which all other rights are derived, and you can agree that some restrictions on property rights are neccessary, then one cannot subscribe to the fashionable libertarian notion that property rights have pre-eminence.

We need to be able to argue the pro-life position fro a position that can be understood by unchurched people, who make up the majority of the pro-aborts and the general population and I hope I have provided you with some worthwhile ideas.

Next: Given the reasonable possibility that Roe V. Wade may be struck down in the future, and that the abortion debate is now back on the table in Canada, whether the politicians want it to be or not, we need to be able to offer solutions for dealing with the what comes after abortion is illegal, if we are to get anywhere. I will make a post offering some ideas for this shortly.

2007-09-30T04:37:00.000-07:00

What About Post-Secondary Education?

By all indications, it appears the ballot question in this Ontario election is clearly the issue of public education funding. Do we spend more on maintaining and improving the existing education system, or do we spend 400 million to fund private religious schools?

We have been hearing about that issue ad-nauseum, but very few people have been talking about post-secondary education. The issue goes far beyond freezing tuition fees and addressing student debt. We need to look into investing more into new institutions of learning so that more students will have the opportunity to achieve all they can, and in so doing we may be able to address the debt situation if, by establishing a few more local universities and colleges, more students could continue to live at home with their families, and not have to worry about living expenses which make tuition look like chump change.

Moreover, many Ontario communities suffer because some of their best and brightest go away to University an once they graduate, don't come back to live and work where they cam from. Those who can't afford tuition and living expenses, and don't want to go into debt stay home, but don't get their degree.

By establishing more universities in the regions, we would make it more attractive for business to invest in our smaller communities, and build the regional economies and improve the tax revenue base, instead of concentrating around big cities. If more business goes to the regions, resulting in less congestion in the cities, it is also beneficial to the environment.

It's a no-lose proposition.

One of the best ways to start this process is to demonstrate that there is demand in the regions for such projects. One example is in Quinte, where a group of people have gotten together to rally the community around building a University for the Belleville/Trenton/Prince Edward County region. Quinte/Prince Edward rivals Kingston, Peterborough and Oshawa in total population, but unlike those cities, has no university.

The group is petitioning the people, business and elected officials to get behind the project, and so far the response has been very positive. They also have a Facebook Group through which they communicate.

If tuition fees can be kept under control, and the need to cover living expenses is reduced, more people will have access to higher education and the opportunities that come with it. They won't enter the workplace saddled with massive student debt and OSAP on their backs. The local communities and economies will benefit, and society as a whole will improve, as education deals with many of the social issues socity faces. If people are better educated, there tends to be less crime, violence, teen pregancy and drug use.

2007-09-27T14:51:00.000-07:00

Ontario Election:FCP Candidate David MacDonald Speaks as Dalton McGuinty looks on.

Here is a video from an Ottawa South all candiates meeting. Family Coalition Party candidate David acDonald speaks out about what he stands for and why he's running as pro-abortion premier Dalton McGuinty looks on.

This is what our candidates are made of.

2007-09-27T08:21:00.000-07:00

Ontario Election: TVO Interviews Family Coalition Party Leader Giuseppe Gori

The Family Coalition Party is Ontario's only officially pro-Life political party.
Leader Giuseppe Gori holds forth with Stev Paiken on TVO.

2007-09-27T07:43:00.000-07:00

What Comes After?

Life Chain 2007 is taking place in most parts of Canada this coming weekend, and there is every chance that those of us who will stand for the right to life for the unborn will be asked similar questions. I have posted this so that we can be prepared to defend what we are doing, and demonstrate that we have thought through many of the issues that society will face once we have removed the bloody stain of abortion from Canadian society.

About two months ago a YouTube video made by a poor-choice "Journalist" with a video camera interviewing protesters outside an Illinois abortuary asked one simple, straightforward blunt question: , "OK so you make abortion illegal: What should happen to women who obtain illegal abortions?"

The issue is addressed again in this article entitled "Gobsmacked by Logic: Will Pro-Lifers Succumb to Silencing Tactics?"

Talk about "gotcha!" politics. It was very sad to see the good people of our movement, being made to look like complete fools by this pseudo-journalist. Not one of them had a cohesive answer.

As a movement, we DO need to be very prepared with ideas for what comes after, should we succeed in winning the battle for the foetal right to life. We need to address both the potential criminal side, as well as address other arguments that poor-choicers use against us.

My own view would be that women who obtain illegal abortions should not be jailed but the providers of such services should be locked up, and the key thrown away.

More importantly, we need to think about a support system which would render moot the arguments made by the pro-aborts.

in brief:

Requiring the fathers of such children to provide financial support for the child for the duration of the pregnancy, if the child is to be given up for adoption, and if the child is to be kept, until the child reaches the age of majority.

Making available state assistance for cases where the father cannot be located or assistance from the family of the woman is not possible. and providing for the funding of adult education programs so that women whose educaion is interrupted by a pregancy can get a new start once the child is born.

Have government work with faith based groups to provide shelter and support for those who cannot support themselves during a crisis pregnancy. Such shelter and assistance can be provided by volunteer citizens who have extra room in their homes, as well as faith based groups who open group homes.

To fast-track the adoption process so that suitable homes can be found quickly for children given for adoption, and to provide financial assistance to those who take special needs children into their homes.

As far as making it illegal without meting out stern punishment , one of the protestors had it right when she said that at least it removes the sanction of society via the government which represents the people.

In the view o many , What the women have gone through in having an abortion is enough punishment. The providers who profit from murder of children, and the deception and injury to the would-be mothers should be dealt with severely.

one good thing the video did put across, is that it shattered the myth that pro-lifers are out to jail women. It was obvious that the protesters cared about both mother and child. No misogyny there.

What we can learn from the video , is that as a movement , we need to prepare solutions for when the time comesthat it is banned, and be ready with intelligent, informed and innovative answers when the question "what comes after?" is inevitably asked of us. After all , we are the true progressives, and abortion, like slavery was 200 years ago, is the foremost human rights issue of our day.

2007-04-13T06:55:00.000-07:00

China to Crack Down on Web Porn

The Internet is a great thing insofar as it has increased to power of the average person in the world to speak their mind and express a wide range of ideas, and given many the opportunity for self-employment and entrepreneurship that were heretofore unaffordable, and has made it simple for people at great distances to communicate as if they were just next door, the Internet has its dark side too. Online casinos and Internet Porn have proliferated on the same worldwide web, and are causing untold harm to families, and indeed , anybody who becomes addicted to either/or.

However, China is cracking down on it, and has even arrested, and sentenced the largest Chinese purveyor of online smut to life imprisonment.

While I believe that ideas should be freely debated and left to stand or fall on their own merits, I do strongly support censorship of pronography and online casinos. They do not contribute in any way to the free expression of ideas. all they do is create false, exploitive images to tickle fantasies, which lead to the destruction of marriages and families.

Libertarians will pounce all over me for supporting this kind of censorship, but I submit that both pornography and gambling are addictive behaviours, and that once a threshold is crossed, it no longer remains a simple choice of viewing it or not.It becomes a compulsion which eventually brings about irresponsible behaviour that causes harm to others, who had no choice in the matter.

For more detailed information on the harm pornography causes, and if one is addicted, how to overcome the addiction I an reccomend the two following websites:
1- True Knights

2- Be Broken

I would hope that other governments will crack down just as hard on pornmeisters, and online casinos.

2007-03-25T12:19:00.000-07:00

International Day of the Unborn Child

2007-02-23T10:58:00.000-08:00

A Day in the Life of a Thai Sex Trade Worker

It's not often that we see a mainstream news source tell the truth about prostitution. More often then not we hear them bleating about how we should make it legal, so the girls can be examined by doctors, and so the government can tax the industry...ad nauseum. Even if it was legal, what good would the doctor's exam do them, once they had contracted a disease like AIDS? And given the nature of the business, the wormn would be taxed by government, and the pimps would still find a way to squeeze them more. But I digress.

Here, though, the BBC has written an article from a former Thai Prostitute's perspective, and she speaks quite frankly about treated as an object, the humiliation and the desperation that causes it.

We learn about how she was gradually lured into it and how she got out. There is no glamour. Only shame. It is also revealing that once she got ouf it, she was clear that though the money was better as a prostitute, she is much better off now.

Prostitution is exploitation of women. No one gets into it by free choice. The pimps recruit the girls when they're down and out. There is almost always drugs & alcohol involved, after all who could do that sort of thing straight?

Pimps, should be locked up, and the key thrown away (Dangerous offenders). For human excrement like that, it should be one strike,and you're out.

Johns should be "outed" and fined.If they were to share in the humiliation of the whole deal, perhaps they will find the strength to resist temptation.

If more men would just think about their own sisters and daughters, and ask themselves if they would want drunk horny men all over them, and if they knew how little the women like it... and consequently them, maybe they'd think twice.

2007-02-13T10:34:00.000-08:00

"Yes, It Is Legalized Murder"...

...Sighs the Russian abortionist at the end of this video, after attempting to rationalize what she does.

This video is difficult to watch, and by way of warning, features some partial nudity in the form of some female genitalia during the labour stage of the abortion. The woman is obviously in severe pain. There are no pictures of aborted children. It's a six minute segment of what was supposed to have been a 54 minute long documentary on abortion in Russia. They stopped production because of lack of financing.

While the conditions in Russian clinics are somewhat less well-appointed than those over here, one thing that is not different is that in spite of the glamour that the culture ascribes to casual, recreational sex, that the real picture of the consequences is not pretty at all. Abortion is all about suffering. The child suffers as it is being destroyed, and the women suffer physical pain as is shown here, not to mention the mental anguish that will plague them for a lifetime. And, surprisingly, it appears that even some abortionists suffer.

The Russian abortionists , unlike their North American counterparts, who tend to glorify it as a woman's reproductive "rights", acknowledge that their profession is repugnant, and that what they do, despite their justifications, amounts to the murder of another human being.

It is estimated that 80% of all Russian women have had abortions, and that the average woman has between 2 and 10 over their lifetime. You do the math.The numbers are staggering.

2007-02-10T06:14:00.000-08:00

In Case You Still Think the Conservative Party Represents So-Cons

Think again.

Heather Stilwell, a well known School Board Trustee in Surrey, BC, and a successful local businesswoman, was told by Party brass that they would not allow her to run because of her history as a prominent activist for foetal rights, and the traditional family.

Isn't it ironic how many people were fretting that the poor emaciated Progressive Conservative party was about to be swallowed whole by the lean mean, sociallly conservative Canadian Alliance? It would certainly appear as if the exact opposite has happened. It is 1986 all over again for social conservatives. How much more clear does this version of the "Conservative" Party have to be that they hold pro-lifers and traditionalists in the utmost of contempt?

Heather Stilwell is one of the founding members of the Christian Heritage Party which arose in 1986 in response to the betrayal of traditionalists by the Progressive Conservative Party, which many social conservatives had entrusted with their votes as a bulwark to reverse the tide of social liberalism started in 1969 by Pierre Trudeau and John Turner with their Omnibus bill which facilitated abortion and legalized homosexual acts. I had first heard of the Christian Heritage Party in 1993 when Heather Stilwell was their Interim leader who led the party into the October election. There was a televised debate for the second-tier party leaders, and I watched to see how well Hill Cox, the Libertarian leader would do. At the time I was the Libertarian Candidate in Vaudreuil-Soulanges. However, there was one participant in that debate whose performance just blew me away, and that was Heather Stilwell. The Libertarian party was crumbling and becoming more socially liberal while I was moving in a more socially conservative direction, and Mrs. Stilwell's message corresponded alomost exactly to my thinking.

Mrs Stilwell has asked the "Conservative" Party to refund her membership fees, and those who signed up to support her. If the party doesn't want social conservatives, then they should refund their money.

I, for one would be very happy if Heather Stilwell would return to the Christian Heritage Party fold and run in the upcoming election as she had inetended to do, against the "Conservative" that the Tories will run in her place. She is an articulate, rational advocate for the values that I and many other canadians share with her. The CHP needs as many candidates as possible in order to put the media in a position, as the Green Party did, where we can no longer be ingnored. Traditionalists across Canada need somewhere to turn, instead of wasting their vote on a party that has shown so cons nothing but contempt ever since Stockwell Day was overthrown.

Think about it:

Stephen Harper promised that he would not allow any of his members to present a Private Members' Bill that would try to restrict "a woman's right to choose" in any way.

The Consevative Party of Stephen Harper held a vote about re-opening debate on so-called Same Sex "Marriage" under circumstances where he knew he would lose, and thus be able to make sure the issue would be off the table in the next election.

Larry Spencer was ejected from the Canadian Alliance caucus, just prior to the CA/PC merger because he expressed his views on homosexual behaviour.

The Conservative party has been rejecting the candidacies for nomination of known social conservative activists. Another case in point is John Pacheco.

I am calling on all Canadians who consider the building of a culture of life through the entrenchment of foetal right to life, and traditional values paramount, to take a long hard look at Stephen Harper's supposedly "conservative" party, and ask yourself if it really makes any sense to continue to support this party that is looking, and smelling more like the Liberal Party with every passing day. Take a serious look at the Christian Heritage Party.

Interesting to note that while Stephane Dion is busy turning away candidates on the basis of gender, Mr Harper is doing exactly the same thing, but on the basis of their support for the very values that made Canada a great nation in the first place, to wit, a culture of life.

"Liberal-Tory... same old (sad) story."

Update 11/02/07

Heather Stilwell has informed me that the Conservative Party "have reconsidered" and are now going to allow her to contest the nomination.

She is not a one issue candidate. She once led a national political party, and is well informed on a wide range of issues.

Nevertheless, knowing what I know about politics and political parties, the message was clear that they don't want her, so it follows that they will do everything in their power to make sure she loses the nomination.

She has no doubt been required to sign a waiver promising not to run against the winner of the nomination should she lose, so sadly she will not be able to run as an independent or once again for the Christian Heritage Party.

Could it be that winning the nomination would be a curse, since she would be effectively muzzled on many issues which are important to her, and her constituents?

2007-02-09T10:05:00.000-08:00

What're They Putting in the Water in Austria These Days?

I just wish they'd start putting in the water supply here! Whatever it is, it seems to have a way of activating the moral compass. Right on the heels of a story about an Austrian Bishop excommunicating a pro-abort businessman we have none other than Christoph Cardinal Schonborn lambasting a Pennsylvania court for their decision forbidding the teaching of “intelligent design” in a Pennsylvania school and accusing the court of mandating censorship in schools and in the general public.

The Austrian cardinal, who was seen by many as one of the frontrunners to succeed Pope John Paul II at the last conclave condemned the ruling for limiting the education of young people to an atheistic worldview, whereas a truly liberal society would encourage students to hear both sides of the debate.

If the Cardinal was not absolutely certain that the Catholic view of creation would not stand the scrutiny of open debate, he would probably not have made this statement.

2007-02-09T07:28:00.000-08:00

A reply to Progressive Conservative on pro-Life Issues

A blogger calling himself Progressive Conservative has taken pro-life bloggers to task and cited one of my postsabout the excommunication/discipline of so-called catholic politicians, and abortion in general.

Suzanne of Big Blue Wave has already answered him on her blog, and I am answering him on mine.

There is a reason that the Pro Life Issues Category at The Canadian Blog exchange is growing, and that is the deafening silence about an issue that matters to many Canadians despite the Mainstream Media's attempt to paint foetal rights advocates as an insignificant minority of troglodytes> To a large extent, they have succeeded, to the point where even the Conservative Party considers it such a hot potato that Prime Minsister Harper has promised not to touch and refuses to allow his MPs to put forward any private members bills to restrict abortion in any way. We are not MPs so we are not subject to Mr Harper's cowardly gag order, and we now have this means to get our message out, and we will use it for all it's worth.

I am pleased that Progressive Conservative has not succumbed to the libertarian notion of legalizing drugs. By taking that pro-life position (since, as far as I'm concerned drugs are anathema to life), and his position on crime (does he believe in punishment for its own sake, or restorative justice?) he indicates to me that if he was properly informed about why the pro life position is the right one, morally and empirically, that he might come over to our side. I also think that his position may be somewhat swayed by the Conservative party line which is guided by the belief that supporting foetal rights will put them right back in the opposition benches, a form of political correctness.

While many pro-life activists are Roman catholic, or people of faith, many of us have arrived at our conclusions by other means. We don't just support the proposition blindly because "its in the Bible" , which of course it is.

Allow me to tell a story that will illustrate the non-religious background in which I initially derived my pro-life views. I used to be a member of the Libertarian Party. I ran in two elections (1988 and 1993) and at that time, I had never darkened the door of a church. I even ran for the leadership of that party. Nevertheless, I always opposed abortion. This may be partly because I am here only on account of a 16 year girl who made a tough decision to stay the course, at a time when "good girls didn't" and then give me up for adoption. Her choice, of which I was told by my adoptive parents very early on in life, taught me the intrinsic value of life. In any case, there was a time when many if not most Libertarians held the view that the right to life was the foundation on which all other rights stood or fell, and many (libertarians tend to be non-religious) believed, correctly, that life began at conception, and that to allow abortion made a mockery of the whole concept of rights. Moreover, Libertarians also held to the view that one should not coerce others to pay for their actions, to wit, no welfare for those who would not work, no bailouts for corporations who displayed fiscal irresponsibility, and that it followed that one could not use the life of an unborn child as the currency by which they could buy their way out of responsibility for their actions. When one engages in sex, contraceptives notwithstanding, the possibility of pregnancy nonetheless exists. By engaging in sexual relations you are cognizant of the fact that you are running this risk, so you should either accept this fact, and live with the result, or abstain, if you wish to avoid the risk entirely.

Sadly, the Libertarian movement has changed over the years, and it has been taken over by people who see property rights as trumping all others, that property rights, in this case the "property" is one;s body, trump the right to life. however, the right to life is the foundation from which all other rights are derived. If someone can take the life of another and not be held accountable, then it really was not a right at all, but rather a privelege that exists only at the whim of someone stronger. This is what we call the law of the jungle.
Property rights , in and of themselves are limited by servitudes or eminent domain, or other restrictions which deny absolute control for the sake of the greater good. For example, the authorities will step in if you put pesticides on your front lawn, because the harm to the environment, its ecosystems, and even people in the vicinity. By the same token, prior to adding on to your house, or erecting other permanent structures on your property, you must obtain permission from your municipality to do so, so that it can be ascertained that what you propose is not a hazard or an eyesore to others. There are also zoning laws, so that no one can open a strip club on your street. So if you look upon the idea of the "right" to do whatever one wishes with their own body as an extension of property rights, you can see where we can come in and propose restrictions on what you can do. In the case of an unborn child, we step in to defend their right to life, which, as I've pointed out trumps all other rights. With all rights, come responsibilities.

Today the libertarian movement is virulently pro-"choice", with the only restriction being that taxpayers not be required to pay for it. I know some people who argue, that there can be no restrictions on the point up to which an abortion can be performed, since, as her body is her "property" to dispose of as she wishes, she may, at any time, withdraw her consent for the baby to occupy her body. The result has been that all pro-lifers have left the Libertarian movement. The most notable case is the case of Dr. Ron Paul, who was the US Libertarian Party's Presidential nominee in 1988. Today Dr. Paul, a pro-life OB-GYN, sits as a Republican Congressman from Texas, and is exploring a run for the Republican Presidential nomination.

So if one accepts the premise that the right to life is the foundation on which all other rights are derived, and you can agree that some restrictions on property rights are neccessary, then one cannot subscribe to the fashionable libertarian notion that property rights have pre-eminence.

Now, moving on to the Church. Can one prove that one's religion is right on everything? That is why we have the Magisterium, to wit, the body of teaching and doctrine that has been handed down from the church fathers and withstood the test of time, and intense scrutiny of some of the top intellectuals throughout history. We can establish beyond ant reasonable doubt that Jesus Christ not only existed , but was indeed who He Said he was. I strongly reccomend a book called The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. He is a former investigative journalist who was in fact the one whose research broke the story that Ford knew about the defect in their 1972 Pintos which left them at risk of exploding. Read the book, and draw your own conclusions.

God does consider abortion a mortal sin. For chapter and verse, you can read the Bible yourself. I also strongly reccommend you read Pope John Paul II's encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life). JP II, possibly the world's greatest advocate for a culture of life, makes his case in that encyclical. It covers all bases from abortion, to euthansia, to cloning, and the death penalty. He also gives some very clear instructions for Catholics in public office.

However, God does offer forgiveness and restoration for those involved in abortion. That is why we have the Sacrament of Reconciliation (aka Confession) where Jesus Christ Himself, acting through the Priest, forgives one for their sins, and restores them to him completely. It is the only means I know of whereby a person with a functioning conscience can relieve themselves of the baggage they have been carrying for years. If this man could find forgiveness and absolution in the Church anyone can.

PC's suggestion that a woman who wants an abortion should go ahead with it on the grounds that "Whatever happens later on in the afterlife (if there is an afterlife), they will have to deal with it then. If we have been wrong about abortion all along and, let's say, the Roman Catholic faith turns out to be the ultimate truth about what the afterlife is all about, we'll have to face the consequences." is nothing more than a suggestion that we sit down and play Russian Roulette with our eternal souls. One reason why we are posting so much material on this subject is that we believe that we will be held accountable for God for not having spoken out against an evil hat threatens temporal lives, and eternal souls.This is serious business, and why we applaud those Bishops and Priests who step up to the plate and deal with those public figures who flout church teaching abd pass themselves off as catholcs, leading people astray by aloowing them to falsely believe that you can call yourself Catholic yet work against the teachings of the Church, which are the teachings of Christ. The Roman catholic Church is a big tent indeed, when it comes to diversity of background, but we do have some infallible teachings and doctrines, to which all Catholics must adhere in order to be in full communion.

If one studies what the Church teaches, why and how the teachings were arrived at, we come to learn, and be convinced by that evidence of the truth she teaches. Or as St. Paul put it, "a more excellent way"

May I suggest , if as you have said, you are strongly atached to your Catholic faith that you call your Bishop's office, (since you, PC, are in Alberta, that may be none other than Fred Henry, one of the best this country has to offer) and ask him to refer you to a Priest near you who is recognized for his orthodoxy, so that you can speak to him about your questions. he will only be too happy to help out. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that one must come of one's own volition, without coercion. Once he has answered your questions, and you have had a chance to weigh them honestly in your own mind, I am confident that you will join us in spreading the Gospel of Life.

2007-02-08T15:17:00.000-08:00

Austrian Bishop Excommunicates pro-abort Businessman. Are Canadian Bishops Listening?

Kudos to Bishop Andreas Laun, of the Archdiocese of Salzbrurg Austria, who announced that an entrepreneur who allowed an abortion clinic to operate in a mall he owned has been excommunicated. We might actually start seeing some progress if more Bishops started enforcing the excommunication that automatically occurs when someone aids and abets in the killing of unborn children.

It makes me sick when the likes of Piere Trudeau, Paul Martin, Jean Chretien, John Kerry and others go around passing themselves off as devout pious Catholics, while doing everything in their power to go against church teaching and doctrine on life and family issues. If our Bishops would only stand up as Bishop Laun has, we can dispel the myth that there is such a thing as a "pro-choice" Catholic.

The problem with allowing them to receive the Eucharist is twofold. Firstly it is a disgrace to the sacrament itself, and secondly, it creates the impression among the laity that one can be Catholic while flouting the teachings of the Church.

The purpose of excommunication is not revenge. It is biblically based (1 Cor 5). and its purpose is to send the person outside the church in the hope that they might wake up and smell the coffee, repent of their behaviour, and eventually be restored to communion. If we truly believe in the Real Presence, we can ask nothing less.

2007-02-08T11:51:00.000-08:00

Winning Today's Civil Rights Battle: Foetal Right to Life

Years of hard work by pro-life forces south of the border have finally resulted in a turning of the tide in public opinion on this issue, to the point where the American public is now, according to all reliable polling data is either for banning abortion outright, or at least bringing in some stringent restrictions. Abortion on demand is now the clarion call of the socially far left.

In Canada, we are light years behind the Americans in the quest for foetal rights.

No major political party in Canada , has the political courage and will to do the slightest thing to restrict abortion let alone outlaw it . They believe that public opinion would not stand for it. We can take heart though, the pro-life movement has awakened the consciences of many Americans, and it can be done here too.

However, one reason why I think we are so far behind in canada, is that unlike americans, Canadians won't go to the wall on controversial issues. Canadians in general, if they are passionate about anything, it is not rocking the boat.

It's high time we pro-lifers in canada did start making some noise, and becoming a stench in establishment nostrils.

Jesus didn't exactly ingratiate himself with the authorities, and seened to have a large segment of his own people against him.

He didn't go to the cross so we could be all nice, warm and fuzzy. That's not what being good is all about. It's about making a stand, and getting bloodied if neccessary for what is right, and it means suffering ostracism.

If we're true to our word and walk the talk, i'm sure we'll all be able to swap some war stories at the end of the day. Let's hope so, because if we have none to tell, it means we haven't done our job.

Not having the time to do anything is no excuse. it will look even flimsier if we don't stand up now and speak out for the unborn, With every passing day 274 more lives are snuffed out for the sake of convenience.

Pro-life individuals in Canada need to contribute either time or money to organizations focused on bring this travesty to an end. These groups can lobby politicians, and produce radio and television ads similar to those that have run in the U.S, and of course, support those who spend their time doing sidewalk counseling outside of the charnel houses known as abortion clinics.We have seen, with the gay lobby, how the principle that "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" plays out, therefore I think the pro-life forces in Canada could gain alot more ground if they made alot more noise! Demonstrate, Blog, post messages, write letters to the editor, and to your members of Parliament! If we don't let them know we're here and have numbers, they'll never listen.

We need to stop caring about what "our friends might think" of our supposedly "unpopular" and "old fashioned" worldview, and get on with doing more than complaining. We need to get serious with our politicians, and call them to account. We can no longer vote Conservative, just to keep the Liberals out, especially when that same Conservative Party forbids its members to speak about abortion, or propose any laws to end it. Federally, there is only one party that is 100% pro-life and pro-family, and that's the Christian Heritage Party. In Onatrio, provincially we have an option called the Family Coalition Party. By choosing these options, while they will not likely for teh next government, and would be lucky to win seats, enough support would wake up the big parties and let them know that Canada is not as overwhelmigly pro-"choice", as they seem to think.

Could Catholics not press our Bishops to order ,that politicians who profess Catholicism, but stand for abortion on demand,so called same sex "marriage" , euthanasia and the like , be held to account and refused Communion unless they repent of these views which contracdict church teaching, and lead other Catholics astray?

These things require courage, conviction and backbone. Let's show the world we have it.

Once we have achieved the enshrinement of the right to life of everyone from conception until natural death , we can close one ugly chapter in the history of this nation.

2007-02-08T06:41:00.000-08:00

Unequal Before the Law: A Tale of Two Foetus Killers

So here's a guy in Texas who gets sentenced to death for killing a foetus. For that crime, he has a date with the executioner.

Now meet George Tiller "the killer" who kills foetuses every day, even viable ones by piercing their skulls with scissors, and then sucking their brains out with an aspirator, before removing the unborn child's corpse from his/her mother.

Both should have to pay for what they've done, though I would argue that the death penalty is inappropriate, however, why is it that one remains free to commit premeditated murder each and every day, and be paid handsomely for it, while another person who killed once be shipped iff to Huntsville in leg irons to await lethal injection?

Putting numbers aside, both have killed the unborn. By convicting the man in Texas based on a 2003 law, the state has conceded that the foetus in question was a human with full rights. Good. However if we have now established a precedent that an unborn child is fully human, then why isn't the man in Kansas trading in his white labcoat for an orange jumpsuit? Why is it then, that Texas still has abortion clinics open? Pro-life activists need to call their government to account. A justice system cannot have "deux poids de mesure".

While expressing my opposition to the death penalty, I do applaud the State of Texas for recognizing that the unborn child is a human being and deserving of his/her right to life. That said, if we are all equal before the law, then all unborn children have this right, thus the likes of Tiller the Killer, and his confreres at Planned Murderhood need to be closed down, and charged with first degree murder just like the man in Texas was.

Abortion will not be rejected until it is seen for what it is. Here are some photos of the profane danse macabre that goes on after an abortion at the Tiller Clinic. You see physical evidence of what was done during the murder of baby Chelsea, and then the disgraceful "memorial" that is part of Tiller's "service".

Here is an animated description of the process of late term (partial birth) abortion, Tiller's specialty:

2007-02-06T10:50:00.000-08:00

An Infastructure Renewal Plan That Saves Dollars and Makes "Sense"

Ron Gray , National Leader of the Christian Heritage Party has looked back at historical precedent, and compared it with current folly, and has come up with an interesting proposal on how to renew our crumbling highways, cities government buildings, etc.

Hmmm. Where's Jack Layton, our supposed advocate on urban infastructure? The silence is deafening. But the "noise" Michael Fortier and the Tories are making makes no sense.

2007-02-06T07:08:00.000-08:00

Let's Pull the Culture Out Of The Toilet

Spinks, a blogger in new Brunswick has launched a really interesting project called 101 People Who Are Screwing Up Canada. This is based on US author Bernard Goldberg's book released last year called 101 people who are screwing up America. However, unlike Goldberg's book, this project is non partisan insofar as those pegged as national disgraces are nailed not on the basis of partisan affiliation, but rather to the degree that they contribute to the culture of corruption, sloth or bringing the arts and pop culture into the toilet, rather than elevating it.

Spinks called on visitors to his main blog, Spinkaboutit to send in their nominations as to whom they thought were screwing up the country, and their reasons why the persons should receive such a dubious distinction. Though he read teh suggestions, since it was his blog the final decisions remained his alone. I've been following the project since the beginning and have found it refreshing that someone is finally calling those who drag us into the gutter on their actions, attitudes and behaviour.

The latest entry was #64, Nelly Furtado. To get the lowdown on why she was nominated, you'll have to go to the site and see for yourself. The comments on this one have been particularly animated. However, what struck me most about those who defended Ms Furtado's tawdriness and cultural bottomfeeding was not that they accepted her message. That goes without saying. It was the butchery of the English language, which has stemmed from the hip hop movement.

Memo to hip-hoppers: The Queen's English is still the passport to a future.

Alot, even most pop music out there promotes sex outside of marriage by passing it off as normal, acceptable behaviour, and that's just your mainstream pop. Hip hop pushes the envelope even further. I won't even venture into gangsta rap. Lets just look at one song that was getting alot of play last year: Dontcha by the Pussycat Dolls. Innocent sounding name, but a word of warning, the lyrics I've linked to are extremely graphic, and they've sent the English language through the woodchipper. However, our children are listening to this. I have heard it, usually in clothing stores where they have the pop/hip hop stations on, and was nearly sick.Teen girls shop at these stores. Young children wait as their mothers try on clothes, and are exposed to this filth. Hip hop culture is the ultimate degradation and commodification of women and girls. It is aimed at 12-25 year olds. The sexual content is one thing, but the way these hip-hoppers use the "N" word is beyond all comprehension. Hip-hop culture is an affront to black people who are part of mainstream society, and do not want to be identified with gangsta and rap culture, which, incidentally, is a business, kept afloat by money spent mainly by..... white teenagers.

It is incumbent on every parent to know what's going on out there. This cannot be written off as "this generation's Rock & Roll". I have heard so many people say "Our parents got upset over Elvis, so what's the big deal?" read the lyrics, read and listen to the way they express themselves. Libertarians will tell you that "if you don't like it, just don't listen to it!", but that is easier said than done, since it is being played in public almost everywhere. I've told Bell Express Vu that I would not subscribe to their package that contains Much Music and Musique Plus because I won't allow that filth to be pumped int my home. To permit it is like opening your door and allowing people to come in and defecate on your carpet, only these people are defecating in your children's brains!
Parents need to act as censors. You need to know and control what's on your daughter's MP3 player. You do have the authority, and only one chance to raise your children. Use it. But be prepared to explain why, and face opposition, but ultimately the authority is in your hands. In the case of younger children, it is you the parent who controls the pursestrings. Do not allow them to buy trashy music, or watch trashy MTV.

You must also lead the way by showing them that there's an alternative. Expose them to quality music, the kind that will still be around hundreds of yeas from now. There is pleanty of new and innovative classical music being written today. Sting, Paul McCartney, and Tony Banks have all moved on to writing and performing this genre of music. If you play classical music around the house from time to time, the kids will at least be exposed to it and appreciate it later on in life. Another solution is Christian contemporary music. This encompasses all major genres of music today, from hip-hop/R&B style (Out od Eden, DC Talk, Tait, Zoegirl) to punk/alternative (Switchfoot, Rebecca St james etc), Country, pop, rock and more. Here is a list that will help you and your child find positive music that is to their liking. I am not knocking all secular music, but I am offering a viable option that kids actually like. But when it comes to secular music, discernment is the highest priority.

Whether we like it or not, there is a culture war going on. The secular progressive movement, wants to replace the traditional Judeo-Christian values an their clear distinctions of what is right and what is wrong, and its definitions of quality and edification, with what is known as moral relativism, where anything goes, and everyone does what is right in their own eyes. Music has always played an influential role in the lives of young people, and today's music is claiming its share of victims who take its message to heart.

We can and must wake up to this pending new moral order, and fight back with everything at our disposal. the battle starts at home.

NB: Pope Benedict has just weighed on the same subject

2007-02-05T08:30:00.000-08:00

Finally Ontario Traditionalists Have a Real Choice!

The October provincial election will be a golden opportunity for traditionalists, or if you prefer the term, social conservatives to really send a message, and have an influence. The media would have us belive that the choice is between Premier Dalton McGuinty, Liberal and John Tory, Progressive Conservative. These two contenders cannot help but conjure up memories of that old piece of political doggerell "Liberal-Tory, same old story", since their social policies are virtually indistinguishable. Both are pro-"choice" on abortion, both favour so called Same Sex "Marriage", and share numerous other common positions that we believe most people are uncomfortable with to one degree or another.

All too often, many traditionalists have held their noses and voted for the PCs "just to keep the Liberals out" . This time , the PCs have a known social liberal at the helm, and it might serve well to remember that it was a PC government that allowed so-called Same Sex "Marriage" to come to pass in the first place, so traditionalists need to ask what difference it would make if the PCs won?

Next question: "what's the alternative?" . The Family Coalition Party is the alternative. We stand foursquare behind the building of a culture of live and governing responsibly according to natural law and traditional ethics. We believe that if we can win the support of even a fraction of traditionalist votes, we will make enough of a wave that Mssrs McGuinty and Tory cannot afford to ignore.

We are going into what is possibly the last Ontario provincial election based on the "first past the post" system, as it is likely that some form of mixed poportional representation will be brought in before too long. By voting FCP, you can help the process of establishing a more fair and representative voting system in your province, one where no-one will feel compelled to choose bewteen the percieved lesser of two evils. If we can push the Family Coalition Party to the 5-7% level of the popular vote (up from nearly 2% with only 51 candidates in 2003), and the Greens get their share of votes, it will be apparent to one and all that the will of the electorate is not properly represented and that change is needed, even if we don't get any seats.

Here is a very short video to introduce Family Coalition Party, and So-Con Blogs. SoCon Blogs is possibly the first and only agregator of blogs affiliated with any provincial party in Canada. All our bloggers support natural law and the desire to build a culture of life, We welcome bloggers from other parts of the country too, who support our goals. If you are tired of watching politicians shredding the social fabric of the nation and offering it up on the altar of political expediency, please look into the Family Coalition Party

This video was produced by Suzanne at Big Blue Wave

2007-02-03T06:36:00.000-08:00

What the MSM won't show you: March for Life in the Belly of the Beast

Here are two videoclips from the March for Life in San Francisco two weeks ago. Notice how orderly and peaceful the pro-life marchers are, and contrast that with the potty-mouthed., lewd behaviour of the so-called pro "choice" counterdemonstrators.

Also present at that march, but not in the video were the family and supporters of Terry Schindler (better known as Schiavo, but I refuse to call her by her husband's name, for obviuous reasons.) were there leading the charge against the culture of death in the form of euthanasia.

Why is it that an anti-war demonstration is all over the mainstream media, but two highly successful marches for life, one in San Francisco, and an even larger one (200 000 people) in Washington DC, go completely ignored? Could it be that some people are not doing their jobs?

Kris paid me a visit this morning, so I went to her site, and found some good pictures that show us the sorry lot that "pro-choice" activists are. It's worth a a click, and a link!

2007-02-02T07:39:00.000-08:00

The Example of John Paul II Is Lost on Decadent Western Europe as Switzerland Leads The Way in Embracing Euthanasia

We need to start paying more attention to life issues at the other end of the journey as well..... Below my commnets are the contents of an e-mail I received today from Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

The culture of death is spreading its dark tentacles through what used to be the heart of Cristendom and will bring tremendous pressure to bear on the sick,weak, dying and disabled to take the needle, since according to their weltanshauung, those who are no longer deemed useful are burdens, and hould recognize that it is time to go. Eventually it may become compulsory for those who can no longer pay for their care, of their taxes. have huamn beings been reduced to the level of animals who are routinely put to sleep when they are too old, sick, dying, or have just become "useless eaters" incapable of working?

Did West Europeans learn nothing from the public suffering and death of Pope John Paul II, who illustrated well how to treat the gift of life, and live it out to the max until God stretches out his hand to reclaim it?

Remember Job 2:10, where the protagonist, in response to his wife's telling him to "curse God and die" by responding " Shall we receive the good from God but not receive the bad?"

Whether we like it or not, suffering is a part of the human experience, but the "me"centered culture of the west is only interested in the pursuit of pleasure (hedonistic, mainly) and the avoidance of pain, though ironically, the pursuit of one inevitably leads to the other.

The following article is a media release from the Dignitas suicide clinic in Switzerland. The release explains that a person who was denied a prescription for Sodium Pentobarbital because of that persons mental illness has now been granted the right to have the prescription. This means that a decision to end one's own life is not limited to people with physical illness but now based on whether a person believes that their life is "not worth living anymore."

The Swiss Federal Court has now granted all people in Europe the right to die based on a principle of radical personal autonomy. This philosophy holds that someone not only has a right to commit suicide but the state has the obligation to assist that suicide, if the person wishes.

There are no safeguards or concerns for people with disabilities and other vulnerable people. The only caveat is that the person must be able to: form his/her will freely and act thereafter.

The Swiss have now opened the door to a free-fall into the abyss of the culture of death. The end of this free-fall is the societal pressure and culture that demands an obligation to die for the weakest members of society who are seen as lacking the quality of life or too stupid to recognize that their life is not worth living.

Alex Schadenberg

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

toll free: 1-877-439-3348

info@epcc.ca

Dignitas in Switzerland issued this bulletin on 1 February 2007:

The Swiss Federal Court acknowledges the right to an accompanied suicide as a human right. Also mentally ill are entitled, if they have capacity of discernment

Decision creates legal security

Uster/Wetzikon, February 1st (.-) The Swiss Federal Court has acknowledged the right of a person to determine the way and the point in time of his/hers end of life as a guaranteed European human right and at the same time basically granted mentally ill this right just like everyone else, if they have capacity of discernment.

At the same time it dismissed a request for the removal of the obligation to present a prescription for the lethal drug necessary for an accompanied suicide. The decision has been announced by the lawyers of the appellant in Uster and Wetzikon ZH.

The decision by the Federal Court has been procured through the complaint of a mentally ill man, a member of Dignitas, for whom - due to legal insecurity - no physician would have written the prescription for the drug Sodium Pentobarbital necessary for a risk-free suicide. The reason for this refusal was the always somehow vague threat by the Zurich Cantonal Physician to withdraw the permission to work of those physicians who would write such a prescription. For this reason, the appellant addressed himself to the Federal Council, the Director of the Federal Department of Health, the Zurich Cantonal Physician and the Zurich Cantonal Pharmacist, claiming the right to have direct access to the necessary drug.

To justify his claim, he referred to the European Convention of Human Rights, which in article 8 secures that all contracting states shall respect the private life of everyone within their jurisdiction. Private life would also include the decision on one's own end of life.

vAll of the contacted authorities either explained to be incompetent or dismissed the request. With one complaint against the federal and another one against the cantonal authorities - which had both dismissed his request in the appeal process - he appealed to the Federal Court. This court also heard him personally in due course.

The Federal Court stated as follows:
· «The right of self-determination in the sense of article 8 § 1 ECHR includes the right to decide on the way and the point in time of ending ones own life; providing the affected person is able to form his/her will freely and act thereafter.»

· «It cannot be denied that an incurable, long-lasting, severe mental impairment similar to a somatic one can create a suffering out of which a patient would find his/her life in the long run not worth living anymore.

Based on more recent ethical, juridical and medical statements, a possible prescription of Sodium-Pentobarbital is not necessarily contra-indicated and thus no longer generally a violation of medical duty of care...

However, utmost restraint needs to be exercised: It has to be distinguished between the wish to die that is expression of a curable psychic distortion and which calls for treatment, and the wish to die that bases on a self-determined, carefully considered and lasting decision of a lucid person ("balance suicide") which possibly needs to be respected. If the wish to die bases on an autonomous, the general situation comprising decision, under certain circumstances even mentally ill may be prescribed Sodium Pentobarbital and thus be granted help to commit suicide.»

· «Whether the prerequisites for this are given, cannot be judged on separated from medical - especially psychiatric - special knowledge and proves to be difficult in practice; therefore, the appropriate assessment requires the presentation of a special in-depth psychiatric opinion.»

On Thursday, the General Secretary of DIGNITAS, Ludwig A. Minelli, explained that with the acknowledgement of the right to an accompanied suicide as an ECHR-right all intentions to prevent with special "rules" people from other countries to come to Switzerland for an accompanied suicide to have no more grounds.

Article 14 of the Convention on Human Rights does not allow for discrimination. Furthermore, the legal security gained out this decision offers the basis that in the future physicians may help mentally ill who have capacity of judgment without the risk of a prohibition to practise their profession, because upon presentation of a psychiatric expertise they may prescribe Sodium-Pentobarbital.

Minelli is convinced that after some time, in other European countries, especially Germany, Great Britain and France, this decision will lead to a reconsideration of the dried up political position and enable a more liberal regime. This would reduce the demand for this service in Switzerland significantly which certainly would be desirable.

A communiqué of DIGNITAS - to live with dignity - to die with dignity

P.O. Box 9, 8127 Forch-Zurich, Phone +41 44 980 4472

2007-01-30T08:34:00.000-08:00

Let's End Negative Attack Ads.

I am not at all impressed with the Conservatives' unleashing attack campaign style ads against Stephane Dion... especially before any writ has been dropped!

I have to blame the voters (myself included sometimes!) for buying into the negative campaigning. If we the voters decided to protest against negative campaigning, in a serious way, then maybe both sides will stop. It's a marketplace thing.

Many of us express our revulsion at these kinds of negative ads, however the operatives will just look you in the eye and say two words "They work." an for the most part they do.

However here are times when they accomplish the opposite of what they intendd. I was told a story about a Democrat who in 1964, while attending a Boston University (not sure which one) got so sick and tired of the Democratic attacks on Barry Goldwater that he said to himself that if he heard one more unwarranted put down of Barry Goldwater, he'd vote for him.... sure enough he was pushed over the edge, and never voted for another Democrat again.

Remember what happened to Sen. Joe Pothole D'amato, who should have been re-elected, but for that disgusting campaign he ran against Charles Schumer.

All parties need to be sent that message.

Can we at least have some honest civilized discussion of issues and ideas rather than personalites?

I, for one, am sick of spin doctors, most of whom should be sued for political malpractice setting the political agenda After all, we are trying to elect someone responsible, and practical who will have the job of guiding the ship of state through some very troubled waters. Legitimate criticism of ideas and policies is one thing, and should be encouraged, but smear and ad-hominem attacks should have no place in public discourse. ( I am preaching this sermon as much to myself as anyone else!).

If , like me, are insulted that hard-nosed marketing specialists and political operatives think they can manipulate us into buying an inferior product because it is not quite as bad as the other, please consider joining me in voting for a candidate or party who shows a strong grasp of meaningful issues, and relies on their ability to communicate their convictions, rather than dig up dirt on other candidates, instead of finding the holes in their arguments.

Here are some samples of what we should demand in the way of political advertising. It would raise the tone of debate substantially.

2007-01-29T11:28:00.000-08:00

For So-Cons, It's 1986 all over again

Social Conservatives, or the term I prefer, traditionalists have been take for a ride once again by the Conservative Party as they were back in the early eighties. The Tories seem to have forgotten what happened the last time they too the traditionalist voters for granted. To refresh memories, two parties were born in western Canada in protest. One was the Reform Party, and the other was the Christian Heritage Party.

The Reform Party has now come and gone, but the CHP remains. In its first election less than two years after its founding the CHP ran 88 candidates, and beat out Reform in several ridings. Reform got a big break in 1989 when some big money backed Deborah Grey in a by election, and the rest is history. Reform went on to elect 52 MP s in 1993 while the once might Progressive Conservatives were reduced to a smouldering pile of embers, with 2 seats. Many traditionalists joined Reform in the belief that they would eventually come to power as a generally pro-life party that supported traditional values. There was also a regionalist element to the movement, to wit a focus on meeting the needs of the west.

There had been some discussions between Reform and the CHP about joining forced, but those came to nought because Reform would not accept the Supremacy of God in a propsoed constutution. Later on when Reform sought to unite the conservtive minded people of Canada (the United Alternative) another attempt was made to bring the CHP aboard, but failed for the same reason.

Nevertheless the Progressive Conservatives and the Reform Party did end up merging, and chose a new leader in Stephen Harper, somewhat of a a libertarian who almost immediately started backing away from the social conservative roots of Reform, first by promising not to touch the abortion laws, and forbid his MPs from presenting bills against abortion.
He nevertheless did hold out the promise to revisit the so- called Same Sex "Marriage" issue if eelected, and thus was able to keep the socially conservative element of the coalition firmly on board.

Where I, and many tradtionalists feel a sense of betrayal was his insistence on re-opening the issue when he did. If he really did want to revisit the issue, it would have been much wiser to have waited for a new election from which he might have received a majority based on some of the positive things his government has done, however he chose to act at a time when many people were tuning out from politics just prior to Christmas, and when the result, the crushing defeat of any attempt to reopen the bill, was a forgone conclusion. The message I received was that this was an attempt to get the issue off the table for the next election (and in perpetuity) , and that traditionalists would remain on board by virtue of the fact that he kept his promise to revisit the issue.

It would appear that he takes us for fools, and is counting on fear of a return to Liberal government to keep the base intact.

Another parallel wth the mid eighties, was his government's recognition of Quebec as a "nation within Canada". It has echoes of Meech Lake and Charlottetown, both attempts by the Tory government of the day to appease Quebec Nationalists, which also contributed to the malaise that gave birth to Reform and the CHP

So the conditions exist once more for another full-court press by the Christian Heritage Party . The Party is now calling on traditionalists who feel betrayed by the Conservative Party to rally behind it, and vote for a party who will fight for their principles and vision of Canada. Even a handful of seats in a minority government situation, would force the Conservatives to listen.
Here is a new video from CHP leader Ron Gray re-introduing the party to Canadians.

2006-12-14T09:24:00.000-08:00

How to get an Elected Senate without Opening the Constitution

One of the reasons I voted for the Conservative party in the last election was the faint hope that we might see some kind of Senate reform. It looks like that could actually be on its way. I have never been happy with the idea of an appointed Senate, much less one where Senators are basically given lifelong sinecures, and can swat down legislation without being aswerable to the voters.

There is one way I can think of whereby we can take some initial steps toward reforming this chamber of supposedly sober second thought, and that is by following a precedent set back in 1989 by former Prime miniter Brian Mulroney.

At that time, the province of Alberta, which has long called for a triple E (Elected, Effective, Equal) Senate held an election to find someone they would then put forth to fill a vacant Senate seat, and Reform's Stan Waters was elected. Prime Minsiter Mulroney wisely went ahead, and respected the voters of Alberta, and appointed Mr Waters to the Senate.

At this time, there are several vacant Senate seats, and all Prime minister Harper has to do is either hold elections to fill the seats, or ask the Premiers of the provinces which have the vacancies to call upon their elections agencies to organize and hold votes, wherupon the winner would be appointed, no questions asked, however for only a limited term whereupon they will have to face the voters again.

This would provide for a way to gradually phase out the old system by bringing in new elected Senators when the terms of the appointees expire. The option of voluntarily vacating their seats in the name of democratic reform should be offered and encouraged to speed things up. If there are takers, others might be shamed into following suit.

The precedent was set by Mr. Mulroney, and Mr. Harper should pick up where he left off and follow it. No need to open the Constitution yet, after all the PM would still be appointing Senators, albeit those chosen by the voters. After a few such elections are held, just let some subsequent PM try going back to appointing washed up MPs, old party hacks and bagmen.