Thursday, May 28, 2015

"Horrified, appalled and dismayed" - we can't say it enough

Liberal MP Hedy Fry says that people receiving CCBR/CLCY's recent graphic #no2trudeau postcards were:
“absolutely horrified, appalled and dismayed."
Wow. I know exactly how these people feel.

Because I also feel absolutely horrified, appalled and dismayed at Canada's continued wholesale slaughter of pre-born children in Canada.

I am also absolutely horrified, appalled and dismayed at Justin Trudeau's all out attack on pro-life MPs. Who are not allowed to run for "his" party.

Yes--horrified, appalled and dismayed. That just about sums it up.

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

March for Life 2015 - more pictures

I know this is a bit late, but a friend of mine took a lot of pictures at the March of Life this year.

I've only posted a small percentage of them below.

Starting at Parliament Hill, down Elgin St., over to Bank St. and finally going past the Morgentaler abortuary at 65 Bank St.


Friday, May 22, 2015

For pro-abortions' petition - see Charter

Regarding this ridiculous pro-abortion petition, here is what lawyer Carol Crosson had to say to me in an e-mail on this petition:
The TTC, as a government entity, is subject to the Charter, in particular section 2(b), which guarantees the right to freedom of expression. Government transit was found to be subject to the Charter in Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority in 2009, where the Supreme Court ruled that advertising on the sides of buses is protected under the Charter and when transit policies prohibit expression, this prohibition is subject to the Charter. 
The TTC does not have the right to prohibit a pro-life message due to the controversial nature of the message. Freedom of expression included the right to communicate controversial and unpopular messages. The Supreme Court has noted that the purpose of protection for freedom of expression extends to protecting “beliefs which the majority regard as wrong or false”, frequently involving “a contest between the majoritarian view of what is true or right and an unpopular minority view”. The Court has also ruled that section 2(b) protects all non-violent expressive activity, without discrimination based on content, however unpopular, distasteful, or contrary to the mainstream. 
In Wilson v University of Calgary, 2014 ABQB 190, a case about a pro-life display on the campus of the University of Calgary, the Court determined that the pro-life message lies "at the very heart of freedom of expression". 
There are exceptions to the rule that speech should be protected. Speech that threatens violence, public incitement of hatred, genocide as well as obscenity, is prohibited under the Criminal Code. “Hate speech” is not protected in Canada. However, the legal standard for hate speech is very high, as affirmed at the Supreme Court of Canada in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11.  These ads in no way violate the Criminal Code or legally qualify as hate speech. 
Other than these few exceptions, the right to share a particular message, despite its disturbing nature, is protected by the Charter. 
So, individuals may fill out petitions because they view these pro-life ads as "scare tactics and christian [sic] propaganda", but Pregnancy Care Centre advertisements posted on City transit buses are protected under the Charter. They cannot be prohibited because some individuals disagree with them, find them distasteful or even controversial.
It is of note that the Canadian Code of Advertising is a mechanism of Advertising Standards Canada, which is a private entity, holding no legal power, and not compelled to adhere to the Charter. The TTC may use the Code as a guide in regulating its advertising. However, If the ad in question is not found in accordance with the Code, the TTC is still compelled to adhere to the Charter, which gives a broad berth to controversial messages.

Carol Crosson 
Barrister and Solicitor
Crosson Constitutional Law

For pro-abortions, the truth is what they say it is

I wrote here about a nasty petition going around, that was trying to get the TTC to remove this ad:

The pro-abortions used this "logic" to defend their petition:
"Pregnancy Care Centers are anti-choice and are known to provide women with false medical information on abortions. They use scare tactics and christian propaganda to influence people's decisions."
This is what Brian Norton of Christian Advocacy Society had to say about the petition:
"Oh no! Due to the politics of abortion, this is another one of those uninformed, misleading petitions being circulated.
The faith-based charity where I work has governed, now for 25 years, two pregnancy centres in BC, along with a residential shelter for abused women, and a sexual assault counselling consortium.
The issue of concern articulated in this petition is as follows: “Pregnancy Care Centers are anti-choice and are known to provide women with false medical information on abortions.”
In fact, pregnancy centres in Canada (to avoid any claim of source material bias) disproportionately refer to prochoice sources and prochoice affirmed epidemiological studies.
For example, regarding all physical risk factors (except one controversial risk still being studied), these are directly sourced from abortion clinics across Canada. Space permits noting only a few such abortion clinics: Women’s Health Clinic (Winnipeg), Brampton Women’s Clinic, Clinique Médicale Fémina (Montreal) and Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital.
In addition, the client brochure with abortion medical information (which many or most pregnancy centres have available) has been “reviewed by more than 45 specialized practitioners in Canada, including perinatal nurses, family physicians, obstetricians/gynaecologists, medical ethicists, psychologists and social workers.”
Finally, the majority of pregnancy centres in Canada are members of the national best practice association, Canadian Association of Pregnancy Support Services (CAPSS). Any member centre which does not adhere to CAPSS’ stringent ‘Commitment of Care & Competence’ and ‘Code of Counselling Ethics’ will be disaffiliated.
For the few of you still reading this comment post …
To read about other erroneous allegations on pregnancy centres in Canada, you may wish to google “A Respectful Rebuttal to a Disrespectful Report”.
Whether we are “prochoice” or “prolife” or “undecided” on the ethics of abortion, we likely will agree that if a centre is able to offer a client accurate information – with realistic options and solutions to her unique barriers for continuing her pregnancy to term – she becomes more empowered to make an informed decision in accordance with what is most important to her.
Brian Norton"
It's the petition that's saying things that are not true, and not CPCs at all.

I think our take away from this is that the pro-abortions have decided they just don't like crisis pregnancy centres, because they are life affirming. So instead, the pro-abortions have to make stuff up about CPCs.

(Note that as of writing, 14,496 people have thus far actually signed this petition. Do they really have any idea of what they're signing, and that what the petition is saying isn't even true? a scary thought.)