Visitors Please Note This Blog Is Inactive

Please note that in a posting dated February 17, 2008, it was announced that the Vote Life, Canada! project, as well as the work of this blog, was to be suspended due to lack of financial resources.

Because a great deal of effort has been put into this blog and because it still serves as a valuable resource for online searches and surfing, the blog will remain accessible.

I encourage readers to visit my other blogs to see if they may be of any interest to you.

Once again, I close this entry with the same reminder to the faithful,

Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, "Behold, we did not know this," does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not requite man according to his work?
Proverbs 24:11-12.

C-484: A Bill about Justice, Not Abortion

Published today in the editorial section of The Telegram, Newfoundland & Labrador's daily provincial paper.

*********

C484: A Bill about Justice, Not Abortion

by Eric Alcock

Lane Jr. was 27 weeks old, still in the womb, when his mother Olivia Talbot was fatally shot twice in the head in 2005 by a childhood friend. Baby Lane perished too. Olivia had been shot three times in the abdomen as well. No charges could be laid in Baby Lane’s death.

When Aysun Sesen, 25 and seven months pregnant, was brought to hospital in October 2007 with multiple and fatal stab wounds to her abdomen, her fetus still had a faint heartbeat but died shortly thereafter. Her husband was charged with her slaying. No charges could be laid in the unborn child’s death.

Five pregnant women have been murdered in Canada in the past three years. Unquestionably, the torment of the grieving families of the victims due to their double loss is compounded by the impossibility of securing justice for their newest family member. They say society refuses to recognize their loss. How profound their pain!

Bill C-484 brings justice to these unborn children and their families. C-484 is titled “Unborn Victims of Crime Act,” and will amend the Criminal Code to prosecute attackers who injure or kill an unborn child during the commission of a crime against the mother.

Thus far, the word “abortion” is as distant from the discussion as green cheese. Why? Because C-484 has nothing to do with abortion. The bill explicitly excludes abortion. Clear headed and fair minded Canadians obviously agree. An Angus-Reid poll showed 70% of Canadians support this legislation, with only 19% of women suspecting the government of a sneak attack on abortion rights.

Joyce Hancock of the Newfoundland and Labrador Feminist Coalition recently captured the attention of The Telegram by claiming the federal conservatives were using C-484 as a back door attack to outlaw abortion.

Ask Hancock what she sees in the bill and she’ll tell you abortion. But I’ll let you in on the secret here. What she really sees is a law that recognizes the fetus as a distinct entity, separate from the mother and worth something. And that scares her because radical feminists and abortion advocates have unceasingly drummed into Canadians that, in effect, the fetus does not exist until it’s born. That’s their justification for abortion, which, incidentally, happens to kill the fetus every time. But it’s no excuse for fear mongering and misrepresentation over C-484.

They’ll tell you the bill grants a “form of personhood” or legal status to the fetus. It plainly doesn’t. They’ll try to sidestep the fetus by saying the “real issue” is domestic violence, not losing an unborn child, or that it does nothing to stop violence against women. Perhaps they should check the title of the bill. It’s not a domestic violence bill. We have those already and if they’re ineffective, let them put their energies into improving them.

They’ll tell you the bill blunders through a loophole in favour of perpetrators of domestic violence or that double charges won’t change anything because criminals serve concurrent sentences anyway. False—they’re grasping at straws.

Liberal MP’s in our province voted against this bill. Provincial Opposition Leader Yvonne Jones immediately pledged support for Hancock but admitted she hasn’t even read the bill! How telling. Shame on them all!

Get fully informed about C-484. Visit MP Ken Epp’s website where you can examine the bill from every possible angle. Contact your own MP as soon as possible and urge support for this bill which corrects a serious flaw in our justice system.

Vote Life, Canada! Project Suspended

Unfortunately, the work of Vote Life, Canada! has been suspended, effective immediately, due chiefly to a serious lack of funding.

Its future remains uncertain, although this blog and the official website will continue to be accessible. It is possible that there may be some future postings on this blog from time to time, depending on circumstances.

I have already thanked my small base of faithful and ardent sponsors for all their past expressions of support and I now say thank you to all the other individuals and groups who have offered words of encouragement along the way.

I close with this reminder to the faithful,

Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, "Behold, we did not know this," does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not requite man according to his work?
Proverbs 24:11-12.

Do Canadians Want to Pay out EI Illness or Maternity Benefits When There is no Child?

A release today from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF), a federally incorporated, non-profit and non-partisan, advocacy organization dedicated to lower taxes, less waste and accountable government.

January 31, 2008
Let's Talk Taxes: Federal

A not so private matter
by John Williamson
The assertion about “abortion being a private matter between a woman and her doctor” has been made a lot this week, mostly by proponents of the Supreme Court ruling that struck down Canada’s abortion law 20 years ago. It’s a clever jingle, but not entirely true. At least not as far as taxpayers are concerned.
...Full Article

h/t BigBlueWave

A Brief Look into Politically Correct Injustice

My latest community editorial for The Telegram appears in today’s edition of the paper.

**********

Politically Correct Injustice

We all believe in justice, right? Everyone treated fairly and nobody left out, right?

"Justice" sounds simple but we all know it's not that simple. It starts with a caring heart and a watchful eye, to say the least. The rest of the justice formula demands serious thought, a lot of hard work and a process.

I propose today we focus on a little careful thought about what the word justice means. Dictionary aside, I'd say it means treating people according to the truth of who they are and what they've done.

Since I've included the "truth" word I'm obliged to include the "God" word because what is considered truth must always have a reference point outside our own personal—and human—subjective opinion. Otherwise we might fail at justice because of personal bias or human error. After all, who knows more about ketchup than Heinz and who knows more about man and his challenges than the Creator of man?

Not coincidentally, that's the way Western civilization has viewed the relationship of truth and justice for centuries. This approach has served to keep our society strong and safe. In fact, many famous jurists have acknowledged that the Ten Commandments comprise the foundation of common law and the free world's justice system.

Without a foremost respect for God's version of the truth we would not have been able to bring to justice those who massacred Jews in the name of 'superiority' and 'purity.' Their politically correct injustice served political ends but did not line up with the truth and therefore led to the worst kinds of crimes in society.

Similarly, the fight to lead the Blacks out of slavery was a justice movement founded on God's version of the truth about man. Slavery and racism in America were also examples of politically correct injustice where sadly even certain Christians tried to use the bible to justify their outrageous conduct.

Our society also has its own versions of politically correct injustice—always aimed at the other guy though and not ourselves. Consider the crisis in our healthcare system—including the spinoff "truth" crisis at Eastern Health—and also the scandal of pauper's wages for home/elder care workers. Both are fundamentally justice issues and not simply financial predicaments. Why? Because we have agreed as a community that our own personal convenience and prosperity takes precedence over providing to the most vulnerable and needy of our fellow human beings the same treatment we, and certainly God, would advocate for ourselves.

Similarly with poverty. But not simply the extremely narrow version espoused recently in St. John's by religious leaders aiming to abolish such injustice. Yours truly showed up with an opinion that since a child's right to life precedes the right to food and clothing these leaders ought to also be on record for abolishing the politically correct injustice of abortion. Within minutes, and before saying a word, I was immediately identified through a phony handshake, arrested and confined to a paddy wagon for the duration of the news conference. How's that for political correctness? No matter—a small price to pay for exposing the unpleasant truth.

And there's the rub. A society that closes its eyes to the truth will surely be blind to its politically correct injustices. Justice simply cannot be separated from the truth. It's no coincidence that the courtroom demands we "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth…so help me God."

Joanne Byfield: Pro-Life Movement Has Made No Political Gains In Canada

For a worthwhile summary of the current state of the pro-life movement in Canada, check out this article

Byfield sees slow progress in battle against abortion
Voters need to speak out before change will take place, she says

Byfield has impressive pro-life credentials. She thinks the media are playing a huge role in our current impasse.

She said in Canada it is impossible to have a public discourse about the issue of publicly funded, unrestricted access to abortion because most of the members of the mainstream media are pro-choice and consider abortion a settled issue that is not "of interest to anyone because it's not of interest to them."

No surprise, like Tristan Emmanuel, she points a finger at Christian leaders.

"Our churches aren't doing enough. There is a fear, on the part of pastors, to speak about abortion because they know there are wounded men and women out there and they don't want to make anyone uncomfortable."

Her solution?

Voters need to tell the politicians who come to their doors asking for votes, "We won't vote for you unless you do something to protect human life.

"Priority has to be (given) to de-insure abortion and our politicians have to hear it from person after person when they go from door to door. Our job is to get people to that point."

Joanne is certainly correct when she says that our politicians need to hear it from person to person, door to door. But how will that happen? Who can motivate citizens to take such action?

Good question. Consider this: Who controls the thinking and actions—the very morality—of our citizens? Who can have the greatest influence upon their lives?

If, generally speaking, Christians and pro-lifers do not agree that religious leaders fulfill that role almost exclusively, then I’m afraid I don’t know on what planet they are living. Granted, the “media” have very significant influence but they don’t shape the morality of the nation. They just talk to death the existing morality from their point of view. Nor do pro-lifers shape the thinking and actions of citizens to any significant extent. Isn’t that the point made by Joanne Byfield? Nor do politicians seem to be shaping the morality of our nation. Again, listen to Byfield.

Who then shapes morality?

Church leaders. The Church. And other religious leaders to a much lesser extent. The morality of Canada is essentially shaped actively or passively by our Christian leaders. The big question though for Christians and the pro-life movement as a whole is “Can we do anything about the failure of Christian leadership in Canada and thus change the moral direction of Canada?”

In the article It's Time For Pro-Lifers To Change Their Strategy In Canada Or The Toll On Babies Will Continue pro-life leaders are challenged to take their heads out of the sand and take a different approach to the defense of innocent unborn lives in Canada. The article deals more pointedly at the failure of Catholic Bishops but applies equally well to the failure of other Christian leaders. A prominent example of the fear which immobilizes pro-life leaders in Canada can be seen in this posting Are Pro-Life Leaders In Canada Afraid To Speak The Truth?

Joanne says

Priority has to be (given) to de-insure abortion and our politicians have to hear it from person after person when they go from door to door. Our job is to get people to that point.

No doubt everyone can participate at some level in the strategy to "get people to that point." But I would argue that the only people truly able to succeed in such a revolution of reforming voting habits is the clergy, through a reformation of the Canadian conscience. If we make Byfield's strategy our chief preoccupation, which seems to coincide with the general philosophy of action of pro-life leaders throughout Canada, we'll keep on spinning our wheels.

If anything at all can be done to halt the neo-paganism overtaking Canada, I believe that only when Christians/pro-lifers decide to take concentrated and united aim at a campaign of accountability for Canada’s clergy—the higher the ranks the better—the sooner we'll see citizens pressing political candidates door to door.

And not a minute before.

For those who claim pro-life leaders in Canada have tried such a strategy and found it impossible or impractical, I for one would like to see the evidence. Like Byfield, I see a trail of political and educational failure but where is the evidence of a national strategy to hold Christian leaders accountable for fulfilling their God ordained duties—and for their failures?

You say it can't be done? I say it's time to talk about it.

Tristan Emmanuel: Church Leaders Culpable

Tristan Emmanuel, who just returned from a great conference and Caribbean cruise, shares his disappointment in his No Apologies column today.

But there was also something sad about the event.

…I was struck time and time again, by how inept the leadership of the evangelical and conservative Catholic strains of Christianity have become when it comes to defending the faith.

…they are also not equipping their congregants for the daily battle of ideas in our culture.

He makes some very good and seldom-heard points, much along the lines of my recent posting Mother of all Human Rights’ Battles Launched by Ezra Levant. I was surprised that Tristan seemed a little more than simply disappointed by the reality he describes, given his “culture wars” background.

If he believed in the one holy, apostolic—and visible—catholic Church, no doubt he would agree near-perfectly with the analysis I offered in my posting, i.e. the failure of Bishops in their role to teach, govern and sanctify is the primary and dominant cause of our current malaise.

Tristan is certainly right when he gives credit to the Church for being the chief force in promoting a free and just society. The vast majority of society, including Christians, cannot seem to apprehend—or believe—such a concept.

I have often thought that in an ideal world - where the church was doing its job - the "ECP Centre" shouldn't be necessary. After all, churches should be advocating for brothers and sisters who find themselves on the wrong end of the law simply because they have spoke truth. The price of political freedom is free speech that gives offence. After all, what can be more offensive than the gospel's call to unrepentant sinners - be they abortionists, homosexuals or philanderers?

As I noted similarly in my posting, shouldn’t the pastors—the defenders of Truth—of Christ’s Church be the very first ones to be hauled before such “human rights” Commissions for announcing offensive truths? Instead, they have left the defense of truth to the rare courageous layman, journalist, or common citizen.

In my mind, there’s also no doubt that when those individuals fail whom God has called and ordained to announce the Gospel and defend His Truth, He can as easily “raise up the stones” to serve as salt and light to the world, to testify to His Truth and to mobilize His people.

That seems to be what Tristan alludes to in his closing paragraph.

The fact that so few pastors are actually equipping their congregants with a consistent Christian world and life view that manifests itself in "salt and light" activity - or in advocating on behalf of those who are subject of hate-crime investigations - tells me there is room for this Canadian to start equipping the saints in America.

In a similar sense, that is precisely the nature of the work undertaken by Vote Life, Canada! but without losing sight of the fact that Church leaders themselves must be continually called to live up to their God ordained roles and to account for their failures. Until the rank and file Christian is so persuaded in this task, in my opinion, we can be only marginally successful in winning the war.

Mother of all Human Rights’ Battles Launched by Ezra Levant

Here’s a fight destined for history books.

LifeSiteNews has a great summary to date.

On Friday, January 11, Ezra Levant, the former publisher of the now defunct conservative Western Standard magazine, appeared before the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC). Levant was brought before the Commission after a complainant accused him of hate speech, citing Levant's decision to republish in The Western Standard a series of controversial cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed.

I’m hoping that Canada’s Human Rights Commissions have met their match in Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn and Macleans. If these formidable foes cannot smack down the Orwellian HRC’s in Canada, I’m afraid we are in our last days of freedom of speech [and religion] in Canada.

I’m happy that Bishop Frederick Henry has been willing to take on the HRC's, soul-less tyrants that they are. Although I’ve spoken out against Bishop Henry on some accounts, it is much to his credit that he is the only Canadian Bishop who has been threatened by such Commissions to answer for Christian teaching—which is unalterably opposed on some crucial accounts to the politically correct ideology demanded by such kangaroo courts. Bishop Henry had simply reaffirmed the truth contained in the Catholic doctrines on marriage and the family. To date he has survived the assaults and has prevailed.

In fairness, it must also be noted that, aside from the “Generals” in this war such as high profile Bishops like Frederick Henry, company captain and pastor Steven Boissoin as well as foot soldiers like Bill Whatcott and Chris Kempling have also faced off with the enemy. Unfortunately and unsurprisingly they have not prevailed. Were it a conventional war we were fighting we should not be surprised in the least by these casualties. How many soldiers normally die in battle for every General lost? Sure, that’s stretching the analogy but couldn’t statistics apply here as well because even in a spiritual battle, when humans are involved, casualties are still counted in names and faces.

A very big question here, and one which I hope will be asked, is, “Why haven’t most, if not all, of the Bishops [or other Christian leaders] been hauled to account before the Commissions?” After all, there’s but one Christian faith and one Catechism. So is it because they not declaring the Truth and defending the Faith? Should it depend on which geographic area of Canada where you live? In fact, why does the battle for freedom of speech, which may be considered a derivative of the more fundamental right to free expression, conscience and religion, have to be fought at this stage by “laypeople” and even non-Christians? Don’t misunderstand; I think it’s good and right and courageous of them to do so. Clearly, it is not only Christians who are able to recognize and adhere to the principles of natural law. So I thank God that they are doing it!

But the Bishops are the sanctifying power of society, entrusted to preach and to teach Truth. Doesn’t the truth touch at all upon this battle of rights we are now witnessing? Of course! It’s all about truth and fundamental human rights. Where do human rights originate? Hint: Don’t try to figure out that question without reference to Christian revelation and teaching, i.e. Truth. So where are the Bishops?

Our progression backwards in terms of fundamental rights and justice is simply clear testimony to a societal breakdown in the apprehension of objective truth. It is more than obvious that the “hate speech” battle now in the news reminds us that at one point in the past we had something which we now fear we have lost or are losing. What we are losing is the very integrity of Western civilization which was knitted and forged under the tutelage of Christian thought and leadership.

The ground we lose is ground lost solely because truth is consistently and appreciably undefended or misrepresented by the “Generals” in this war, the Bishops. The enemy of God and of man is only too happy to take it back, one step and one fight at a time, hoping with all his might to de-Christianize Canada and plunge it into an abyss of tyranny and totalitarianism—a political system tragically proven throughout history to be the reward of willfully ignorant, corrupted and unbelieving peoples.

The sooner we see the essential and decisive role of Bishops in the “culture war” in Canada the sooner will we govern ourselves personally in fidelity to the Truth—and the sooner will we acquire the right and duty to demand more from them—and the sooner will our society recover itself.

In the meanwhile, Mssrs. Levant and Steyn, lead us onward! Champion our cause! And God be with you!

[image source]

Barbara Kay Favours Death Penalty by Firing Squad

Regarding capital punishment, Barbara Kay thinks “objective justice and sentimentality are now too inextricably tangled together” for us as a society to resolve or revisit the issue.

But she offers her opinion. It's certainly a personalized and somewhat unique statement.

I really think we have banished the death penalty for the wrong reason: because we don’t like the methods used.

What is Ms. Kay’s preferred method for termination?

In the end I keep coming back to the firing squad. It is by far my own preferred way of execution, should the occasion arise. First of all, it involves no loss of body parts, which is important in terms of human dignity. The families of the executed should have a whole body to bury. The face remains unblemished, again important for the family. The executed faces his executioners and stands upright. That is good. Lying on a gurney or strapped into a chair, the person’s helplessness and humiliation are exaggerated. A man - it is usually a man - wants to die like a man. Standing up at the same level as those who will kill him.

I only wish her detractors were at least equally, if not more, repulsed by the "legal" death penalty for Canada’s Unborn.

Feminist and Pro-Abort Activist Judy Rebick Reflects on Morgentaler at 20

The Court.ca sought out contributions from some of those involved in the landmark judgment twenty years ago in R. v. Morgentaler. Judy Rebick shared her delightful memories.

In Morgentaler at 20: An Activist reflects, Rebick describes how the ruling was received by the Canadian women’s movement.

I’ll never forget January 28, 1988, the day the Supreme Court struck down the abortion law. It was freezing cold. A group of pro-choice activists were standing in front of the Morgentaler clinic along with a mob of media waiting to hear the news from our comrades in Ottawa.

[snip]

A reporter called me aside and said she had just heard on her radio that the Supreme Court had struck down the law on the grounds that it interfered with women’s right to security of the person. I didn’t believe her.

[snip]

A decision based on the Charter guarantee of security of the person was too much to hope for. After all, the major argument of the pro-choice movement was that a woman had the right to control her own body.

[snip]

It was a profound and incredibly long-lasting victory that for us was of equal significance to the winning of the right to vote a couple of generations before. In essence, the highest court of the land said that the abortion law violated a woman’s right to control her own body free from state interference.

The entire post is here.

Vancouver Sun Conducts National Poll on Canada’s Morality

What do you believe is right and wrong asks the Vancouver Sun.

Find out just what kind of Canadian moral type you are by taking an online Vancouver Sun quiz at http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/features/moralityquiz/index.html.

It takes only a few minutes.

You might discover you're a strict moralist, who just can't accept abortion and homosexuality or prostitution. Or perhaps, by filling in what you think is morally acceptable or not, you'll learn you're a laissez-faire person, who believes almost anything goes when it comes to sex, animal cloning or euthanasia.

Then again, through our exclusive national opinion poll, you might be surprised to find out you belong to a large group of Canadians known as the thoughtful conservatives, who are okay with sex outside marriage but opposed to wearing fur.

Or, perhaps like many Canadians, you're an accepting MOR, a middle-of-the-road person on everything from divorce to the death penalty.

Of course, you could end up in the camp of the relativists and the uncertain, the people who have trouble deciding what they think is ethical.

Douglas Todd of the Vancouver Sun offers his take on what this poll says about the moral compass of Canadians.
Which way does your moral compass point?

Here’s one little glimpse of Todd’s analysis.

More than 60 per cent of Canadians find abortion and homosexuality morally acceptable, for instance, compared to 47 per cent of Americans who endorse homosexuality and only 43 per cent who are all right on abortion. In addition, only 54 per cent of Americans find it morally acceptable to have a baby outside marriage, compared to 83 per cent of Canadians.

The Vancouver Sun also reports on the surprising results of this poll for B.C.
We're Not So Laid-Back in Lotusland Anymore

Demographics—Driver of Change and Crippler of Society

Thinking about the future in Canada is very troubling for me for any number of reasons.

My grandson is just one year old. And I hope to have many other grandchildren. In 2040, just about the time my grandson would be getting himself seriously established in the workforce, about 25% of Canadians will be over 65 years old and a seriously diminished number of working Canadians will have to support them.

The strains and stresses produced by these dynamics stagger my imagination. We are committing social and political suicide.

**********

Demographics—the driver of change

This is the time of year media types like myself dust off the crystal ball and take a look into the future but there seems to be a lot of no go zones when it comes to looking at some of the most serious issues impacting society.

A great case in point is the massive demographic shift that every Western nation including Canada is undergoing. It's a phenomenon that is already having a profound impact on healthcare, immigration, employment trends and business yet my bet is that if you review all the broadcasts or columns talking about major trends in the next month you'd be hard pressed to find more than a couple that mention demographics.

Every once in a while I try a sell demographics as the most important subject we ignore, especially when it comes to the healthcare debate but given that the aging population plus falling birth rates in Western nations is arguably the most important driver of change in our society you'd think it would rate more attention.

Ten years ago David Foote had a best seller entitled, Boom Bust and Echo and last year Mark Steyn focused on falling birth rates in his best seller America Alone but the subject doesn't capture the imagination in the same way as things like global warming, a bird flu pandemic, the substance abuse probelms of Britney Spears or the death of Anna Nicole Smith. Yet scratch the surface of so many recent news stories from Muslim riots in the outskirts of Paris to the financial woes of General Motors and you'll find demographics play a pivotal role.

In the last year the news was full of stories on care for seniors, falling school enrollment, meagre economic growth in much of the western world, cultural assimilation in Europe and healthcare financing, which are all driven by demographic trends.

Unfortunately politicians don't want to touch the subject because any talk of adjusting government spending is political suicide. When newly elected French President Nicolas Sarkozy suggested changing public sector pension to bring them in line with private ones transit workers went on strike for a week in November. Across the western world the "me generation" has made it clear that they won't tolerate any changes to the welfare grab in spite of the fact that actuarial accountants make clear the current system is unsustainable.

In Canada, our birth rate of 1.48 is far under the level to sustain the current population, which would require a rate of 2.1 yet few seem to talk about the consequences. In Japan and parts of Europe the trend is already further along with the past year showing already more deaths than births.

Since Canada's valued social programs were created in the 1950s and 1960s, our birth rates have declined and our mortality and mortality rates have decreased. In the mid fifties 39.4 percent of the population was under 20 while 7.7 percent was over 65. By 2004, the numbers had changed dramatically with the under 20 proportion dropping to 24.6 percent of the population while those over 65 increased to 13 percent. The kicker is that by 2040 the under 20 will have dropped to about twenty percent while the over 65 crowd will make up nearly a quarter of the population.

Simply put those are not the projections that our programs were predicated on. Something has to give and "that something" is what all serious commentators on our future have to focus on.

The question becomes how are we going to handle the problems. Are we going to cut benefits, raise the retirement age of entitlement, loosen immigration rules or simply implode because we didn't address the issue soon enough? Continuing to ignore the problem only guarantees the disruptions the demographic shift cause will be greater.

Let an honest debate begin.

[Source]

h/t Free North America

Canada’s Christians Ask: Is Life Chain Still Worth All the Energy?

Interesting insight from the latest edition of CanadianChristianity.com on the pro-life movement in general in Canada.

**********

Is Life Chain Still Worth All the Energy?

IN CASE you missed it, pro-lifers across Canada held their annual Life Chain recently. Less than 100 from the Victoria area’s population of a quarter million showed up with text-only signs, for the hour-long stand along Blanchard Avenue. Not an impressive showing for a community which once could assemble more than 500 f

or this event. I think it’s time to ask: is this worth doing at all, if so few show up?

Michael Green, outgoing president of Victoria Right to Life, the event’s sponsor, thinks it is. He wasn’t on Blanchard for Victoria’s Life Chain. A Cobble Hill resident, he went with his family to Duncan’s Life Chain, which drew 60 – 70 people.

Green says if just one mind is changed about having an abortion, and one life is saved, it was worth it. He blames the poor showing on lack of support from churches, and gradual desensitization of Christians to abortion.

“We used to get 400 – 500 out for the Life Chain when people were still scandalized that we had no abortion law in Canada. Now Catholic and Christian people are desensitized to that reality.”

Green wonders whether it might be time to adopt a more hard-hitting approach, like that of the Calgary-based Centre for Bioethical Reform.

The centre mounts picture displays, usually on university campuses, that show aborted fetuses alongside the bodies of victims of the Nazi Holocaust and other mass atrocities. This hugely upsets people.

More recently, the organization has drawn the censure of Calgary’s Catholic bishop Fred Henry, for its ‘Reproductive Choice’ campaign – which sends a truck through the city with the image of a bloody fetus on its sides. In Henry’s view, the images showed disrespect for the dead.

“But everyone is using the shock approach nowadays,” says Green. “ICBC is showing pictures of car accident victims. The Cancer Society is showing diseased lungs. Let’s put the pictures up, and put the pro-abortionists on the spot. Let them explain.”

Green, a Catholic, like most of those out for Life Chain this year, also grouses about what he perceives as a lack of support from his denomination’s hierarchy. Indeed, I noticed no priests on hand for Life Chain; but neither were there any Protestant clergy.

Victoria Bishop Richard Gagnon says Catholic opposition to abortion “has been consistent and clear.” His own diocese’s financial difficulties are well known, he says, and have meant that it cannot afford paid family life staff as other dioceses can.

But the pro-life organizations on Vancouver Island, he contended, “have not always been working effectively together.”

I experienced this first-hand when I attempted to contact some evangelical pastors for their views on the Life Chain turnout. Several of them did not return my phone calls.

Longtime Life Chain supporter Arla Taylor, of Central Baptist Church, notes the problem isn’t Victoria’s alone. Activism needs a focus, she says. With no realistic prospect of the Conservative government countenancing an anti-abortion bill, there is no achievable goal to justify the effort.

Taylor believes the movement made a strategic blunder decades ago, when a previous Conservative government introduced a law moderately restricting abortion and the movement refused to back it ­– leading several pro-life MPs to oppose it, and causing it to fail.

Even an imperfect law, she says, would have provided a focus for reformist activity. Now, she says, “we are the only Western democracy with no law on abortion at all.”

Catholics like their clergy to lead; but it appears pro-life organizations aren’t providing much leadership. I’m not sure if our own priest exhorting us to attend Life Chain would have been as effective as an articulate pro-life spokesperson reminding us of the issue: that 13,000 unborn are slain in B.C. yearly.

Enthusiasm is infectious. Our parish is all on fire these days over a fundraising concert to pay travel expenses for our young adults to attend an International Eucharistic Congress next year in Quebec City. It’s a big deal; but big deals are routine in the Catholic Church – and I just as routinely ignore them.

Not this time, however – because the chief fundraiser buttonholed me after church and gave me her elevator pitch about the group and the cause. Result: I organized a table of friends, and friends of friends, for the event. It was a first for me.

On the morning of the Life Chain, one of the young people headed for Quebec delivered another pitch for the fundraiser after church. She is also a member of a nondenominational UVic pro-life group; so I asked her why there was no participation from her group in the Life Chain.

Nobody from Victoria Right to Life had contacted her about it, she said. Others have confirmed her impression. Can we blame pro-life organizers for having run out of steam? I don’t think so. But I think Jesus’ instruction for us, that we have to knock if we want the door opened, applies not just to prayer – but also to requests for support from Christian congregations. These days, it would appear, nobody’s asking.

We all need a wake-up call. Stephanie Gray, the founder of the Centre for Bioethical Reform, says attendance at pro-life events is going down generally in Canada. Even people who believe abortion is wrong don’t feel very strongly about it, she tells me.

“There is a lack of deep-seated conviction on how evil it really is. Words-based messages about how evil it is just go in one ear and out the other. To get people to realize how unarguably evil it is, you have to show them pictures.”

I think she and Green are right: we live in an age of images and feelings. People today don’t ‘get’ words, but they ‘get’ feelings. For better or worse, pictures have an indisputable impact – be they of the thumb-sucking fetus sleeping in the womb, or of the bloody, post-abortion corpse.

Some people will be offended, of course, within the church. But I think we’re at a point where even a negative reaction is better than none, even if it causes divisiveness within a congregation – which, in my case, is home to plenty of pro-choicers.

Fighting is preferable to sleepwalking.

[Source]

Baby Leif and Baby Kintyre Witness to Canada’s Schizophrenia Regarding the Unborn

In a story entitled “At last, a chance to rest” the National Post reported yesterday on a “unique” funeral held Friday for an infant found mummified and wrapped in an 82-year-old newspaper.

Although no family came to see him off, an infant found mummified under the floorboards of a downtown Toronto home in July got the dignified burial that children's advocates were hoping for yesterday morning. Baby Kintyre -- so named by the home renovator who found him curled in fetal position and wrapped in an 82-year-old newspaper on Kintyre Avenue in the city's east end -- was buried as part of an unusual ceremony held to draw attention to the plight of abandoned babies.

This case raises a host of questions about the dead child. Although the story indicates they “found him curled in fetal position” the urgent question of whether the child was actually a “fetus” or an “infant” was immediately answered in the second paragraph.

Investigators never did find Baby Kintyre's next of kin, or a cause of death, although Ontario deputy chief coroner Jim Cairns determined the infant was born alive by looking at the air sacs in his lungs.

So obviously by outward appearances it was not possible to say whether the mummy was a fetus or an infant. [I guess there can't be THAT much difference between these two entities, can there?] In fact the original July story identified the mummy as either a fetus or a “young baby.” A medical examination was necessary. This crucial determination paved the way for a huge memorial service with all the bells and whistles, along with headline media coverage.

What do you think might have happened to this little child’s remains had the coroner not been so sure that Baby Kintyre had made it through to birth? In that case, the child would have actually been a “fetus” and I’m guessing the discovery would hardly have qualified for much more than a line or two buried somewhere on page B14.

Fetuses, after all, have no legal standing in Canada. Legally they are not considered persons. Small wonder then that after nearly forty years of such confusion some Canadians even question whether they are truly human beings. We really don't seem to know what they are.

No one would have risked entry into the “A-word” debate by highlighting the strange death of a mummified fetus by means of a funeral , even though it might have only been days away from drawing air into its lungs. Imagine suffering the wrath of the advocates of “choice” who do everything in their power to de-humanize the unborn child at every stage of its life, right up to that “magic” moment of birth whereupon a “blob of tissue” miraculously becomes a fully formed “wanted” baby, complete with personhood.

In Canada no abuse of unborn children is actually possible under the law since mothers hold supreme power over the growing mystery entity within their bellies, consigning them even to the butchery of an abortionist’s knife or suction machine if it suits their circumstances. Note in the following quote what is considered as “the very first stage of abuse” for children.

Yesterday's elaborate funeral was arranged by The Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness as part of its ongoing campaign to honour children who have been abandoned, what the centre considers the very first stage of abuse. It is also using Baby Kintyre's funeral as an opportunity to advocate for legislative reform.

What would happen I wonder, if Baby Kintyre had turned out to be a fetus and some pro-life group had decided to hold a grand funeral pageant like this one in order “to advocate for legislative reform?” I can hear the howls now from “poor-choicers” but then again, perhaps they wouldn’t have heard about it because the media would have suddenly had better and more important matters on which to report.

Apparently in Canada today the “children’s advocates” referred to in the first paragraph of the story have a very selective understanding of the term “children” and “babies.”

In a unique agreement with the cemetery and the coroner's office, the centre will now receive babies from across Canada, give them a name and arrange their funerals. This way, the discarded infants will not end up in minimally expensed municipal graves, or "paupers' graves," as Dr. Cairns calls them.

Discard in dumpsters or incinerators more than 100,000 dead and bloodied “fetuses” violently killed in the womb and we are not expected to be the least bit concerned about a decent and respectful burial. But abandon a baby and we rush to create a national funeral centre to avoid “pauper’s graves.”

Kill the child in the womb, right up to 9 months—no problem. Kill the child the first day of his/her infancy—it’s a clear-cut case of abuse, even murder.

But both our semantics and our heartlessness are catching up with us. Unsurprisingly, the line now appears to be blurring with respect to what is and is not infanticide.

Still, the call for similar measures resonates in Canada every time there is a fatal case of newborn abandonment, or another crime where a troubled mother kills a newborn. After a 15-year-old girl gave birth to a healthy girl in the bathroom of her parents' home in Brampton in 2002, then stabbed it in the neck, police opted for a second-degree murder charge instead of infanticide.

What might we next consider to be tolerable—Peter Singer’s take on infanticide?

In considering our tragic duplicity in Canada, try to grasp this statement by Ellen Campbell, the centre’s founder:

These little babies, I just think they're screaming from their graves about abuse of children.

No doubt Ms. Campbell is a well meaning and compassionate individual. She may even be a “pro-lifer.” And the fact is that abandoned children, like Baby Kintyre, do suffer terrible abuse at the hands of their parents, as Ms. Campbell rightly laments.

Yet—we are permitted no sympathy or pity for the more than 100,000 “little babies” killed in the womb “legally” in Canada every year but for these who are abandoned, she (along with the rest of Canada) says,

It's a huge statement about how we value children and the dignity of life.

Kinghorn, the home renovator who found Baby Kintyre, described for us near perfectly in one sentence Canada’s schizophrenia:

I can't fathom murder ... I want to think it was natural.

Mark Pickup Reports That He Has Closed Down Human Life Matters

In yesterday’s edition of Robert Jason’s newsletter it was reported that Mark Pickup has closed down the HumanLifeMatters website, although his blog is still operational at this point.

This is a sad development, particularly in light of the circumstances cited by Mark in his letter which appears below. What is most disturbing is Mark’s experience which in his own words indicates the extreme difficulty of “evangelical and Catholic Christians being able to work together, arm in arm, to resist the culture of death rising in Canada.”

Please pray that God will provide guidance for Mark in his decisions for the future.

**********

The End of Human Life Matters

It is with sadness that I write this note. HumanLifeMatters has failed.

I envisioned evangelical and Catholic Christians being able to work together, arm in arm, to resist the culture of death rising in Canada. I was naive. Although Edmonton's former Archbishop Tom Collins liked the idea and encouraged the Archdiocese to work at a board level, through its life office representative, the evangelical side of the vision was less forthcoming.

My personal conversion to Catholicism was like a nail in the coffin for my idea. The Baptist General Conference withdrew financial support, the Alberta BGC Executive Minister resigned with a flare of anti-Catholic rhetoric.

I felt sick for my Lord's prayer for unity in John 17. His comment in John 10.16. What of Saint Paul's call for unity in Romans 12..5, or Galatians 3.28 or Ephesians 2.16, or 4:4-6? Does 1 Corinthians 12.13 have no application? Was it me who misunderstood the Scriptural principle of unity amongst those who stand at the foot of the cross and claim allegiance to Christ as our first love? Could we not look past denominational differences, historical grievances, and work together in the cause of Life? Apparently not.

To be fair, not all evangelical representation left immediately, but eventually, other evangelicals on the board resigned. We sputtered along, and I was eventually left with one evangelical and one Catholic. That was it.

I approached the Edmonton Archdiocese to see if they would take HLM under their wing. However, Archbishop Collins was transferred to Toronto. His replacement understandably does not want to take on anything new until he is comfortable in his new post.

And so after five years, I end where I began. Either I misunderstood what I believed God was asking or I failed Him.

I will close HumanLifeMatters' federal registration number, the website is already closed. I have not decided whether to close the HLM blog.

Mark Pickup

The Call from Vote Life, Canada! for Catholic Bishops to Convene Emergency Session is Thankfully Getting Some Traction

The press release issued yesterday by Vote Life, Canada! calling on the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops to immediately address the problem of pro-abortion “Catholic” priests and politicians in Canada has been catching the attention of news outlets and bloggers.

Below are links to some of the stories I’ve seen this morning. If you care about the plight of unborn children, please give this story more attention in whatever way you can in hopes the Bishops will get a taste of the outrage and realize steps must be taken.

Pro-Life Group: Canada's Bishops Should Address Abortion, Communion
LifeNews.com - Helena, MT, USA
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) meets next week for its annual Plenary Assembly and a leading pro-life group says they should take up the issue of pro-abortion politicians and communion. Vote Life Canada wants the bishops to call an emergency session to address what is calls an "ongoing scandal.

Vote Life, Canada! Requests Emergency Session of Canadian Bishops
EWTN News—USA
According to Eric Alcock, the President of Vote Life, Canada!, “Just last week, Catholics in Canada were scandalized by the television appearance of Father Raymond Gravel, Catholic priest/politician, who once again unabashedly expressed his support for both homosexuality and abortion."

Vote Life, Canada! requests emergency session of Canadian bishops
As the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) prepares to convene next week for its annual Plenary Assembly, the organization, Vote Life, Canada!, is calling for an emergency session to investigate how priestly actions contrary to the Church, have impacted the Canadian people.
CNA - Daily News - http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/

Canadian Bishops to Convene, emergency session requested, cite Abp Burke
By Blogger Thomas Peters
The organization "Vote Life, Canada!" is calling upon next week's plenary assembly of Canadian Bishops to do something decisive about the recent string of priestly public scandals. They are calling on the CCCB to have an emergency session to address, as they describe it "ongoing scandal and devastation caused in Canada by renegade Catholic priests and politicians.
AmericanPapist: Not Your Average Catholic

Letter To A Pastor: A Plea For A Consistent Ethic Of Justice

Dear Pastor,

It was a pleasure to meet with you in your office a week or two ago and to introduce myself. I appreciate the time you took in the midst of suffering from the flu!

I enjoy your homilies because I find without exception they include a serious and very intentional aspect to which I respond and which I strongly believe is necessary during our time at Mass. As Christians we must be challenged to go beyond where we are with Christ today.

At Mass today, you referred to today’s Gospel reading and noted that Jesus invariably was found with the outcast, the poor and the abused. You challenged us to go to those places and people where Jesus spent His time. You spoke of the need to go beyond charity (simply giving financially) and to seek for justice and inclusion for all peoples in our community. I was very pleased to hear you refer to the responsibility we have when voting, especially to keep our Christian priorities in focus, e.g. not emphasize taxes over the very obvious priorities of justice and love. Yes, how tragic it is when we Christians make such shallow decisions and we know it happens all too often. Furthermore we seldom hear in homilies the application of such practical principles and perhaps that is the very reason why we Christians fail so often to accomplish God’s will and why the oppressed continue in their sad condition.

So thank you for your efforts, dear Pastor, to rouse us and challenge us to be better Christians!

I must not close without sharing with you my lament that we Catholics so often talk about the vital issue of justice in our society but rarely if ever do we hear a plea for justice for the unborn. Perhaps it’s because it is now “legal” and we have been finally lulled into accepting it as a reality and believing that we can do nothing about it. It is much easier then to push it aside, almost denying that it happens. But God help us never to think this!

Surely when we feel the most defeated and disconsolate in a campaign for justice, that is the very time when our Lord Jesus urges us to stay in prayer…and to continue preaching and teaching the truth. Why then have we abandoned the cause of justice for the unborn? Why then have we become silent?

I’m sure that you will agree Pastor, that the killing of unborn children, as Benedict XVI constantly reminds Catholics almost daily, represents the greatest travesty of justice in the world today. He recently said that "today's gravest injustice is the suppression of nascent life.” Considering that over 100,000 unborn children per year perish in the womb in Canada alone, it constitutes the most horrendous discrimination and dwarfs all other injustices around us. Yet we say so little about it and rarely mention even an end to abortion in our Mass intentions. Personally I find our omission of the atrocity of abortion when speaking of injustice as something incredible, even bizarre.

I couldn’t help thinking during your homily today as you spoke about finding Jesus in the streets with His people, shivering and hungry, that surely Jesus is there also with the unborn in the womb when the knife is slicing through flesh and bone. Both images are truly troubling beyond words are they not? God help us to go where Jesus goes, caring for and defending those who suffer such great oppression and discrimination.

Once again, thank you Pastor for caring enough to make us uncomfortable in the pews and for challenging us to live more saintly lives through seeking justice for our fellow man. I would like you to know that I have committed to support you regularly in my prayers so that there might be even more fruit from your labours in this parish.

And of course, my offer for coffee anytime still stands! I believe the next visit is at Tim Horton’s!

Many blessings in Christ.

Sincerely yours,

A (fairly) new parishioner

Is This The Kind Of Canada You Want To Live In?

Today I’m busy writing press releases for the upcoming week and preparing more blog postings with commentary on last week’s outrageous assault on my right to free assembly and free speech at the Press Conference called by the Religious Social Action Coalition (RSAC).

As I recover from the reality of a disintegrating Canadian society where politically incorrect ideas are more and more rigidly controlled by those best characterized as the “thought police,” my attention is drawn to an article on the TakingCanadaBack.ca website. Entitled, “Betrayed,” I can’t help saying that’s much of what I feel over last week’s fiasco when I was dragged to the paddy wagon by the thought police of the RSAC—and all the worse because these men and women claim to be sincere Christians and others of good will.

At the conclusion of this article, the author asks:

Is this the kind of Canada you want to live in?
Do you want to live in a Canada where decisions are made in secret, where Cabinet can dictate to the police how they can handle a case or respond to an issue, where courts can make law outside of Parliament? Do you want to live in a Canada that no longer controls her sovereignty, energy, resources, borders, defence, trade, environment or laws, to name a few? Do you want to live in a fascist police state where you have no personal freedoms? If not then please join us and start taking Canada back today! Make your opinions known in the Canada Blog. Sign the Canada Agenda. Tell others to do the same. Together we can make a difference! But time is short.

Perhaps partly because of the article’s emphasis on “policies of secrecy and diversion that were so perfected by the Liberals under Pierre Elliot Trudeau,” and its focus on the removal of citizens’ rights and freedoms in the process, I see it as a somewhat accurate portrayal of Canada’s current reality. As we've noted before, Trudeau was a powerful [Catholic] instrument in foisting “the ‘legalization’ of the triad of contraception, abortion and sodomy upon Canada, along with the liberalization of divorce laws.”

I’m not familiar enough with the many other political issues covered in the article, nor are those my emphases or those of Vote Life, Canada! We do not necessarily subscribe to all the views expressed. However, they do seem to paint a consistent picture of creeping tyranny and dangerous socialism.

If the reader understands much of the emphasis of the Vote Life, Canada! project it will also be quickly apparent that the article pointed to does not address the failure of leadership in Christian circles in Canada, most notably with the Catholic Bishops of Canada, and so it really doesn't touch on the moral/spiritual dynamics which have led to the disastrous decision making condemned by the author.

So, having issued that disclaimer, here are some of the passages that jump out at me, especially in light of this past week’s events.

**********

REALITY CHECK: Canada is no longer a free country

The Canada of today is not the same country millions of Canadians fought and died for in two world wars. That Canada is largely dead. It has been replaced by an imitation created by elitist nihilists who, in addition to benefitting from the corruption and greed that they supported (Gomery's comments come to mind), cared more about street gangs and criminals than they do about their victims. Make no mistake. This is true. They still do. Just listen to what they're saying.

Now these people, even while sitting in opposition, can't come to terms with the mess they've created. I am fed up to the teeth with these hand-wringing, limp-wristed nihilists and their attitudes. I don't care how our lawmakers solve the problems they created, just solve them. But don't take away *my* rights and freedoms in the process. I am talking to you Mr. Prime Minister. I am not a criminal. My heart cries when I think of what your predecessors have done in the last 38 years.

If you have a problem with terrorism, take it up with the terrorists and those counselling violence and hate in our country. Don't take away my rights and freedoms. If you have a problem with guns in the streets, find and arrest those street gang members and others who are carrying guns in the streets. Don't take away my guns. I repeat. I am not the criminal. I am the person who elected you and who you swore to serve and protect. I am a peaceful citizen.

Since 1968 Canada has become a pacifist, socialist country where judges make law instead of elected legislators; where courts are more concerned about criminals than their victims; where foreign companies can sue Canada for enacting laws that are good for Canada and Canadians; where people are encouraged to get on welfare and discouraged from finding work when on it; where the ability to speak two languages has become enough to qualify for public office and; I could go on...

Our federal government has become a large and intrusive government that has either forgotten what its core functions are, no longer cares, or, worse yet, has become an instrument for others who want to destroy our sovereignty. Canada is a country on the eve of destruction.

….

With his election to Prime Minister on April 20, 1968, Pierre Elliot Trudeau's creeping "dictatorship of relativism" succeeded in embedding his pacifist, Marxist-leaning, socialist philosophy into the Constitution and laws of Canada. Western Canadian columnist Link Byfield wrote in a September 2000 Globe and Mail article that "Parliament annoyed [Trudeau], so he bulldozed his Charter of Rights into the Constitution (1982) and surrendered statutory supremacy to the court."

…

Why did the Liberal Party choose socialism and dictatorship for Canada that day in Kingston, Ontario in 1960? The answer to me is simple. They did it for power. They knew what would buy votes. They didn't care about what was good for Canada. They cared only about what they believed would get them back in power and keep them there. And they were right. They created fear of Quebec separation and then said they were the only party that could deal with it. They created the welfare state and then said they were the only party that would continue to dole out the money. Enough people believed them and voted for them, and the people of Canada got what they deserved.

…

In my opinion Canada's politicians have been bought off and are now firmly in the pockets of an international crime syndicate whose sole objective is to take over Canada and destroy Canada's sovereignty and the rights and freedoms of her citizens. Unless Canadians rise up and stop this, the result will be slavery and a police state existence for us all.

….

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is smoke and mirrors. I challenge anyone to identify one single right or freedom, desired by the majority of Canadians, that the Charter offers that we did not already have under the existing Constitution Act of 1867 or under Common Law. The Charter was crafted in secret by lawyers, for lawyers, with the specific objective of empowering courts and Cabinet to create laws in secret [my note—including laws to kill unborn babies] outside of Parliament. Once again, the lie is in the name. It has nothing to do with individual rights and freedoms. It has everything to do with power and control.

…

Robert Bork in his book The Tempting of America-The Political Seduction of the Law, wrote, "Once the judges make the law, the democratic process is at an end."

…

Read the entire article here.