Press Release: Eric Alcock, President of Vote Life, Canada! Pursuing Human Rights Complaint against RSAC and Local Police

Further to the incident last month involving the arrest of Eric Alcock.

**********

Monday, October 1, 2007

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Eric Alcock, President of Vote Life, Canada! Pursuing Human Rights Complaint against Religious Social Action Coalition and Royal Newfoundland Constabulary

Issued by:
Vote Life, Canada!
NL Provincial Directorate
4 Hickey’s Rd.,
Paradise, NL A1L3J3

Contact: Eric Alcock, President and NL Provincial Director, Vote Life, Canada! 709-773-0700

St. John’s, NL October 1—As a result of the despicable actions of the Religious Social Action Coalition (RSAC) and the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary against the person of Eric Alcock on September 5, 2007 at The Lantern in St. John’s, Mr. Alcock is moving forward with a human rights complaint against both parties.

On that date, Alcock was arrested and detained by police almost immediately after arriving at the RSAC Press Conference without having said a word. The Conference was advertised as being open to all interested members of the public and Alcock in fact had personally received a forwarded email message originating from the Religious Coalition inviting individuals to attend.

Police had already been called to the building before Alcock even arrived and were summoned from the hallway immediately when organizers had confirmed Alcock’s presence through a phony handshake and identity check. He was straight away removed by officers from the building, escorted to a paddy wagon and locked up for an hour until the conference was over.

Organizers of the event, as well as media, had been alerted to the concerns of Vote Life, Canada! by a press release the day before and were also informed that Alcock would be in attendance. Alcock went to the conference with no intention other than to express a viewpoint, given the opportunity. He had hoped to go on record as saying that when the RSAC was seeking to address the issue of poverty that it was in fact completely neglecting the Unborn who are the poorest in our community, not being granted the right to live, let alone the right to food, clothing and housing.

Alcock is charging human rights violations through harassment by both the Religious Social Action Coalition and the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary who served as their henchmen. Alcock claims the RNC simply rubber-stamped the wishes of the RSAC and failed to exercise due diligence and impartiality in this incident, further contributing to the harassment and possibly violating other aspects of the law by having him locked up in a paddy wagon cage already on site.

Furthermore Alcock is considering what charges can be laid against the CBC for the skewed, biased nature of their coverage on the evening television news hour which introduced a serious element of defamation of character. The CBC news identified Alcock as an unknown “protestor” who “disrupted” the press conference. It was reported in the same broadcast that “police had to be called in.” On two successive evening news broadcasts the CBC featured full video of Alcock being taken away from the building, arm in arm, by two police officers, yet made no efforts to provide the public with the truth of the events, despite being called upon through press releases to do so. Alcock’s reputation after this CBC television coverage, for anyone who knew him or knew of him, immediately went from pro-life advocate to unruly disruptive protestor who needed to be physically removed from a press conference and confined in a cage in order to be restrained.

The painting of such a picture significantly threatened Alcock’s public image and his ability to work with community leaders throughout NL to advance the pro-life goals of Vote Life, Canada! This represents an extremely distressing outcome for simply showing up at a Press Conference with a viewpoint.

Alcock has had conversations with the Human Rights Commission office, has submitted details of the incident and has initiated a formal complaint.

RSAC to NL: Concerns For Unborn Unwarranted And Irrelevant

Imagine if the Vote Life, Canada! press release had centred on the charge that religious leaders had refused to condemn child abuse that was taking place in the province, yet now were pressing for poor children to receive three square meals per day. What might we expect as a result of such charges of double standards and hypocrisy?

A good guess would be to expect religious leaders to immediately deny the charge and cite their unequivocal opposition to child abuse. Some would certainly refer to past statements and initiatives already on the record in order to deflect such criticism. And, granted, this would be the proper response.

But in respect to the recent charges by Vote Life, Canada! that the Religious Social Action Coalition (RSAC) was risking charges of blindness and hypocrisy by pressing for the abolition of poverty without first being on record as opposing legalized child killing, no such response was forthcoming.

So what was the message communicated to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians by the RSAC in this situation?

A fair guess would be that, in light of the actions taken against Eric Alcock by the RSAC, they found the charges to be not only without credibility and unworthy of comment, but also they judged that Mr. Alcock’s presence at the press conference posed a real threat of some kind. If indeed his charges were without warrant and unworthy even of rebuttal, then Mr. Alcock must be an unbalanced individual requiring police presence to ensure the public peace.

I ask again—what then was the message communicated to NL by the RSAC in this situation?

Obviously, with respect to Vote Life, Canada's message, clearly it was that Vote Life, Canada! had no message worth mentioning.

So to spell this out even more clearly, the RSAC was saying that a concern about legalized child killing in our province is a message not worth mentioning, let alone discussing.

Thank you, RSAC, for qualifying the matter as you did.

It’s really a challenge to imagine that religious leaders who have risen in their ranks have not heard or thought about legalized child killing going on in their very midst. We may safely assume that they have done so. Yet it’s obvious—by the previous logic—that they have no concerns about this NL reality.

Looking further into their logic, they are saying it’s ok to be concerned about a child’s needs for food, clothing, etc. and, at the same time, it’s ok to be selective in which children are entitled to these rights.

Since such attitudes result in the deaths of the most innocent of NL’s citizens, they are saying something much more substantial—something insidiously evil—when they communicate their message. Doesn’t this constitute the worst kind of double standards imaginable?

[Assuming, of course, the most important question has been answered and the Unborn are considered to be fellow human beings.]

On Wednesday, September 5, the first day of school in St. John’s, the police were called to a local school for acts of violence by youths against one another.

I found it ironic that the police were called to an incident of violence on the first day of school while I sat in the paddy wagon, being confined there for seeking to highlight the greatest violence taking place in our society against children. I heard the call come in over the police officer’s radio while he stood guard outside the door of my detainment cage on wheels.

Afterwards I posed a question to the constable. “Do you know why kids resort to violence in their dealings with one another?” He said, “Tell me.”

I explained that it was because of poverty—the poverty of the Unborn—the very reason I came today to the Conference and the police had me removed. I explained that we teach mothers that it’s ok for them to use violence to kill their children in the womb when it suits their purposes but then we wonder why kids are so violent and cruel to one another. Our children are simply acting out what they have learned from their parents.

The officer said, “I don’t see any connection there at all.”

No, and most likely he won’t either, as long as religious hypocrites keep control of the message. As long as the truth is not spoken by Christians (who know the Truth) or by other leaders entrusted with the common good of society it will never reach to the common Joe or to the common constable.

Keeping Canada’s Christian leaders accountable is a necessity and Vote Life, Canada! will be doing its part to sound out warnings.

Accusations of being uncharitable have already been leveled. In my interview with Randy Simms on VOCM radio, he seemed to be calling for a more polite approach. Did Randy forget that I never got to say one single word at the RSAC press Conference?

Think about that for a moment. I guess Randy thinks a person can be impolite for just showing up and wanting to express a viewpoint. And no doubt about it, the thought police were there to lock up that idea (and me along with it).

Others have condemned me for laying charges of hypocrisy in the first place. Apparently we have become so polite in Canada that we should never use the word “hypocrite.” It’s almost as though no hypocrites could possibly exist in Canada.

hyp·o·crite

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

Religious Hypocrisy In The Province Of Newfoundland And Labrador

[UPDATED with latest postings.]

As a result of the events of Wednesday, September 5, 2007, a number of postings have served as commentary on the shameful incident.

If nothing else, these postings paint a picture of the hypocritical actions of the Religious Social Action Coalition and the cheap tactics to which they resorted to keep from being exposed.

Religious hypocrisy is the chief cause behind the slaughter of innocent unborn children as well as the spiritual blindness of a nation.

For ease of review, the postings can be found in the following chronological order:

Press Release: Vote Life, Canada! Warns St. John's Religious Social Action Coalition Of Blindness & Hypocrisy

Arrested By Police For The First Time For Representing The Unborn

VOCM Radio Interviews Eric Alcock On His Arrest By Police Yesterday For Defending The Unborn

Vote Life, Canada! Video Of News Surrounding Arrest Of Eric Alcock

Parable of Poverty, Dead Children And A Religious Coalition

“Politically Correct” Poverty Versus True Poverty

Press Release: Vote Life, Canada! Accuses NL Media of Cover-Up And Same Double Standards as Religious Social Action Coalition

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Duped by Religious Leaders into Violating the Rule of Impartiality

Good Pro-Life Strategy: Always Take A Friend And A Camera

RSAC to NL: Concerns For Unborn Unwarranted and Irrelevant

Press Release: Eric Alcock, President of Vote Life, Canada! Pursuing Human Rights Complaint against RSAC and Local Police

Good Pro-Life Strategy: Always Take A Friend And A Camera

Vote Life, Canada! has reported several times previously on the news from Aurora, Illinois, where a huge Planned Parenthood mega-abortion clinic was secretly introduced into an unsuspecting community and city council. This story is likely to go national in a BIG way.

You can catch up on all the news here, here, or here.

The title of this posting arises from a report by Eric Scheidler about some of the happenings in Aurora, Illinois, where not only were two pro-abortion advocates arrested for kicking memorial crosses and shoving a prayer volunteer, but also a 17-year-old girl was hit in the arm by a pellet.

Pro-lifers are being encouraged to bring a video camera along with you for

any type of protest that you may be participating in outside of PP. As we have seen, there are pro-abortion advocates who use violence towards our peaceful, prayerful vigils outside of PP.

This brings me to my point.

Since my arrest one week ago today I’ve had an opportunity to reflect on many of the dynamics of that incident. One new policy which will be instituted immediately by Vote Life, Canada! in all its endeavours pertaining to public outings where pro-life messages are being delivered is to always take a friend and a camera or an audio recording device at the very minimum.

Why? Because the “other side,” who once again have proved themselves to be the true extremists, do not play a fair game.

They don’t want the free exchange of ideas—except their own ideas. They don’t want any reminders whatsoever that there are, in fact, opposing viewpoints and the mere presence of an individual with such a viewpoint at an event where they are showcasing their narrow minded hypocrisy constitutes, for them, a threat and a serious violation—one that must be met with police action and with force if necessary.

Yes, it’s “thought control” and the “thought police” must be called in. In order to further obfuscate the truth of the pro-life message being communicated they seek to discredit the individual with the opposing viewpoint using negative, if not accusatory, terms such as “anti-abortion activist,” “extremist” or “right wing radical.”

If necessary, in order to justify their actions they will also resort to outright lies, such as publicizing the individual on television news as a “disruptive protester,” or one who “disrupted” the meeting, even when there is not the slightest shred of evidence that the pro-lifer disrupted anything or anyone. To them, the mere fact of holding a viewpoint contrary to theirs is disruptive and simply bringing that viewpoint to a public meeting is doubly disruptive.

As always, the truth is the very thing that exposes these low-life tactics for what they are. In fact, it’s the worst nightmare for those using such tactics. And nothing tells the truth like a picture, a video or even an audio recording. It would have been very helpful to have a short video of the few minutes it took Religious Coalition bouncer Arnold Bennett and his officer cronies to identify me and have me thrown out of the Press Conference.

You know, just in case anyone really wanted to know the details of how I “disrupted” the Conference.

Or perhaps better still, video of police whisking me away and into the double-caged “paddy wagon” for the duration of the Press Conference.

So pro-lifers, maybe even Christians in general these days, bring your friend and your camera when you plan to deliver a “truth” message for a world gone off track.

One more thing: Be sure your friend doesn’t actually accompany you at your side. Have him/her at the event but arriving at the event shortly before or after you yet close enough to catch anything on film or audio should there be a need to.

Fair is fair, no?

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Duped by Religious Leaders into Violating the Rule of Impartiality

UPDATE: Please see update at end of posting.

Or this might also be appropriately entitled: "Dialogue between the RNC and a St. John’s Religious Leader"

Last Wednesday, September 5, 2007, something shameful went down in Newfoundland history in the city of St. John’s, and shockingly, but very sadly, it took place at a meeting of the province’s top religious leaders.

Furthermore, officers of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary (RNC) not only permitted it to happen but they also facilitated the outrageous incident where a loyal son of Newfoundland was stripped of his fundamental rights of free assembly and free speech.

In addition, as a result of the RNC’s cooperation and complicity in the affair, at the end of the day this man’s character was impugned and on provincial, if not national, television news he was filmed and falsely portrayed as an unruly protestor, some extremist who had disrupted the Press Conference of a wonderful new coalition of religious leaders.

To date, no correction, retraction or apology has yet been issued by any of the parties involved in this egregious violation of the person of Eric Alcock.

The following scenario is one that might have been constructed by any Newfoundlander who expected the RNC, of all parties, to be able to assist and defend in a situation where fundamental rights and privileges of his/her person were being threatened, and where unjust discrimination and accusation had been laid.

1. Religious Leader (RL): Officer, we called you here to have this man removed.

2. RNC: Very well sir, what has this man done?

3. RL: Well, he has come here to disrupt this meeting and he is not welcome.

4. RNC: He looks peaceful enough to me.

(turning to guest) Is this true sir? Have you come here to disrupt?

5. GUEST: No Officer I have not.

6. RNC: (to guest) What are your intentions in being here sir?

7. GUEST: I came here Officer hoping to express a viewpoint should the opportunity present itself. I have no intention of disrupting this meeting.

8. RNC: (to RL) Sir, this man says he has no intention of disrupting this meeting. Has he actually done anything disruptive?

9. RL: Well, no, but he just got here a minute ago. I’ve been welcoming him (and holding him) by shaking his hand, until my associate just headed into the hall to immediately fetch you two officers.

10. RNC: So he hasn’t done anything disruptive to this point?

11. RL: No, but we just don’t want him here in case he does.

12. RNC: But Sir, you must realize, this is a public press conference and all interested parties have been invited.

13. GUEST interrupts: Yes, Officer, and the reason I learned about the Conference was I received a forwarded email from Coalition members to all those interested in the issue of poverty and encouraging them to be in attendance.

14. RL: Well, we insist Officer that he must leave immediately or that you remove him because he is a threat to our meeting.

15. RNC: Sir, has this man threatened you or others in any manner?

16. RL: No.

17. RNC: Has he made any threatening gestures?

18. RL: No.

19. RNC: Do you suspect that he has a weapon of some sort that he intends to use here?

20. RL: No Sir but he did say some very mean, bad things about us yesterday in a press release.

21. RNC: I’m sorry Sir, there’s no law against expressing a viewpoint. I ask you again, what has this man done to warrant his removal?

22. RL: Very well then, we would just like to disinvite him, to rescind his invitation. We don’t like him.

23. RNC: I’m afraid Sir there hardly seems sufficient cause to remove a law abiding citizen from a public event to which he appears to have been invited just because you don’t like him. Furthermore there is no evidence whatever of disturbance or threats.

24. RL: We just don’t want this man expressing his opinion and bringing chaos to our meeting.

25. RNC: Sir, as I said before, there’s no law against expressing viewpoint. I’m sure others present here today are likely to be doing the same. And besides, please explain how your meeting will be thrown into chaos simply by allowing this man to express his opinion. Will others present start throwing chairs around?

26. RL: Of course not! But it will detract from our good initiative and usurp our very pleasant message to Newfoundlanders.

27. RNC: Perhaps Sir, if you wanted to ensure that everyone present was going to say only good things about your initiative, you should have sent out private invitations and given passwords for the door.

28. RL: But I protest Officer! I had you people called in and waiting so that you could immediately remove this man once we had identified him.

29. RNC: Sir, you are beginning to sound very extreme. We understood there might be some threat posed by this man’s presence at this event. It appears that is not the case and I urge you to remember that this man has certain rights and freedoms which we must also respect and protect. We will monitor this man’s activities throughout this conference and act accordingly. In the meanwhile, please release this man’s hand.

Imaginary? Yes. Sadly so, and perhaps too much to ask for in the times in which we live.

When the same thing happens to YOU and you recall that you were one of the people who failed to speak out regarding this incident, you’ll be feeling a whole lot worse sitting in the paddy wagon than even Mr. Alcock did.

Now remove #’s 4 through 29 and replace it with the following and you have a summary of how the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary failed miserably in its duties to ensure justice on the most fundamental level at the Press Conference called by the Religious Social Action Coalition on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 11AM in St. John’s NL at The Lantern.

4. RNC: Sir, you are no longer welcome here. If you do not immediately leave, we will forcibly remove you.

And indeed, they did just that.

UPDATE: It has been brought to my attention that the real violation here was not being discourteously thrown off private property, as rude and hypocritical as that was, but detention without accusation.

Apparently my detention for one hour in a police cage on site, without reading of my rights or being accused of an offense, was the real violation.

Press Release: Vote Life, Canada! Accuses NL Media of Cover-Up And Same Double Standards as Religious Social Action Coalition

Monday, September 10, 2007

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Vote Life, Canada! Accuses NL Media of Cover-Up and Same Double Standards as Religious Social Action Coalition (RSAC) in Failing to Cover Scandalous Details of Recent Arrest of Eric Alcock

Issued by:
Vote Life, Canada!
National Address: 1075 Bay St., Suite A102-602,
Toronto, ON, M5S 2B2

Contact: Eric Alcock, President and NL Provincial Director, Vote Life, Canada! 709-773-0700

St. John’s, NL September 10/—Vote Life, Canada! thanks VOCM radio for its invitation to join Randy Simms on Open Line the day after the arrest last Wednesday past of Eric Alcock, President of Vote Life, Canada! “In so doing,” states Alcock, “VOCM proves itself as the only credible NL news source in covering the despicable actions that were taken against him and the assault upon his rights of free assembly and free speech. No other media outlet gave anything other than begrudged and biased coverage, if they covered the story at all.”

However, Alcock notes that while he appreciated the interview with Randy Simms he nevertheless takes “strong exception to Randy’s argument that due to the volatility of the subject of abortion in our society I was wrong to rain on the RSAC’s parade and run the risk of detracting from or usurping their message.”

Alcock outlines this scenario: What if our NL Premier had announced a grand scheme to address some deficient aspect of NL society? Imagine someone, let’s say a writer or journalist, upon hearing the Premier’s announcement, accused him of hypocrisy and a small minded approach to the issue. Suppose the journalist had noted he would be in attendance the next day at the Press Conference called by the premier in order to present his viewpoint.

Alcock asks, “Would anyone think that strange? Would anyone, in fact think twice about it? Isn’t this the stuff of everyday life and politics in our province? We claim to believe in vigorous open minded debate. We say it’s a healthy thing for the people of NL. A ‘loyal opposition’ is both expected and honoured in our democratic society.”

“Why then are my actions on behalf of Vote Life, Canada! viewed any differently,” asks Alcock? “The answer is all too obvious. The message advanced by Vote Life, Canada! is not politically correct and the powers that be—those that shape the thinking and attitudes of NL society, such as the RSAC and mainstream media—do not want any change in the status quo on child killing in our land. Therefore they will censor and squash all dissent in regard to that subject.”

Alcock then takes the scenario “a step further downward into its shameful depths.” Suppose the Premier or his aides, knowing that this journalist “protestor” planned to attend his Press Conference, did not want the journalist’s viewpoint being expressed there for fear that it would “detract from the message of his good initiative.” Imagine then police had been called beforehand to be present and immediately the journalist, an “unwanted visitor,” arrived, he was ushered away, amid his protests, into a paddy wagon for the duration of the press conference. Suppose one of the police officers, while taking the journalist away, mocked him: “Your little media circus is not going to work here.”

“Can anyone imagine,” asks Alcock, “that the only effort by NL media to decipher the details of such an outrageous arrest in the days following the event would be one ten minute interview on Open Line? No? That’s comforting because we didn’t really think any serious, open-minded, democratically disposed NL’ er would ever buy into such a deplorable, hypocritical cover-up. We suspect that the airwaves would still be reverberating with cries of outrage and demands for apology.”

This scandalous incident illustrates, with respect to the issue of legal child-killing in our province, who the real extremists are.

“Politically Correct” Poverty Versus True Poverty

The word poverty comes from the Latin signifying “to get little,” and in nearly universal application refers to a lack or deficiency, or to be denied adequate resources to participate meaningfully in some way in society.

It ought to be reasonably obvious then that the greatest poverty would be a denial altogether of an individual’s ability to participate in ANY way in society, i.e. a denial of their very right to live.

Such a definition clarifies the statement made by Mother Teresa that abortion is a poverty and the greatest destroyer of peace in the world today.

Poverty is an issue with men and women of good will simply because it is seen to be an injustice to the individual who lacks or who is deficient in resources, ability, etc. So what is being said is: “This is not right. Children deserve better than what they are receiving right now. They deserve everything necessary to participate meaningfully in society.”

That is the kind of thinking embraced by compassionate individuals who have great concerns about those facing poverty. Quite simply, they maintain, and rightly so, that IT IS WRONG. So poverty is an issue because justice demands that proper and rightful resources be granted the individuals in question.

Clearly, these individuals deserve basic supplies of food and clothing as well as suitable housing and education. More fundamentally however they deserve the right to life. Without that “resource” they have no ability whatsoever to participate meaningfully in society.

Considering the fact that poverty, in the narrow sense of proper food and clothing, is deemed an injustice, then the denial of that individual’s very right to live would constitute the greatest poverty and an infinitely greater injustice.

Again, in the narrow, “politically correct” sense of poverty, we see that it is only one of many kinds of injustices against children. Child abuse is another. As a society we are enraged at the thought of children being abused in any manner by adults. But which is the worse injustice: “pc poverty” or child abuse? The answer is obvious. Taken a step further, it should be equally clear that killing a child is a worse injustice than abusing a child.

Regardless of whether we frame these violations as injustices or different kinds of poverty, the worse violation of all is the killing of a child and all other injustices or poverties pale in comparison.

If one protests about “pc poverty,” maintaining that a child cannot be denied proper food, clothing, housing, etc. but says nothing when the same child’s very right to live is denied, then who will take such a person seriously?

If the deficiencies spoken of are interpreted in light of rights, a similar double standard can be seen. If one maintains that a child has a right to be properly cared for in respect to food and clothing but equivocates or is silent regarding the child’s right to live, one’s friends will scream “crazy.”

But at this point some will strongly point out that of course every child has a right to live—except those who are still in the womb. Conveniently in such cases, these Unborns, for mysterious reasons, are not considered children. Presumably, all those who are impressed with proposals to abolish “pc poverty” but pooh pooh the wider notion of poverty and injustice for Unborns, must not consider the Unborns as children. Why else would they not be protesting such grave evil and injustice aimed at the most innocent of children?

Theirs is certainly a narrow perspective on children’s rights and it is also a uninformed perspective on the question of What is the Unborn? It certainly is not a Christian view of the Unborn as confirmed by over nineteen centuries of Christian teaching and practice.

If we permit a focus on “pc poverty” and turn a blind eye to the greater poverty of abortion, what happens when there are no more children to be concerned about? Must we wait until that extreme point before considering the answers to these questions?

Parable of Poverty, Dead Children And A Religious Coalition

We are strolling down the street with representatives of the Religious Social Action Coalition. We have come from a far away country to learn strategies for dealing with poverty in our own country, having learned of the formation of this remarkable Coalition.

They are about to take us on a tour of the streets of St. John’s and show us the reality of child poverty, which they claim needs to be urgently addressed—even abolished—because children are needlessly suffering every day.

As we walk and they share with us their exciting vision of a city and a province without poverty, a horrid sight suddenly overcomes us. There on the sidewalk is the lifeless body of an extremely young child, severely lacerated and with some body parts even missing. We are immediately repulsed and horrified.

“What,” we exclaim, “has happened here to this child? Surely a great and violent crime has been perpetrated against this child and neither the criminal nor the neighbourhood has had the decency to ensure a proper burial! Furthermore it is obvious that the police have not even been called to inquire into this greatest of all injustices against an innocent child!”

Leaders of the Coalition assure us not to be alarmed. They note that we are likely to see at least three of these children in such condition in the city of St. John’s each day that we are on our tour, some of them even much younger than this child and some of them entirely in small pieces as if shredded.

We protest and demand how it is that this can be so. Leaders try to calm us and assure us that this is not a problem to be concerned with. They would like to hurry us along past the dead child and further along into the tour. But we protest further, insisting that we must know more about these heinous crimes that are taking place against innocent children in this great city of St. John’s. We simply cannot move past this child and resume the tour until the grave injustice has been explored and understood.

The Coalition emphasizes that this is not their mandate and that they have chosen to look at other ways in which they can help children and their families, poverty being what they consider to be the most pressing matter. They boast that the urgency of addressing poverty was such an animating force among the leaders of the Coalition that never before in the history of NL is there a record of such a diverse group of religious leaders from all faiths coming together with a united voice to address such a great injustice.

But immediately we ask the leaders, “But what of these children lying in the streets, violently killed and disposed of in such an inhuman, undignified manner? What of justice for them? And why did not such a diverse and powerful Coalition first come together to put an end to the evil practice of child killing in the city? Of what use is it to expend energy in feeding and clothing children when clearly many children in the city are in serious danger of being killed?”

The leaders seem somewhat shaken and at a loss to answer these penetrating questions but assure us that others are looking after the problem, and that, in fact, many residents of the city do not find the killing of these children objectionable.

We are dumbfounded by this claim, asking Coalition members what sort of callous hard hearted people live in this city. Furthermore we demand to know why it is that those who have been assigned to solve these despicable crimes have not been able to put a halt to such barbarism.

We surmise that such crimes might be the result of recent actions by some particularly heinous serial killer(s). But upon inquiry we learn that this activity has been going on for almost forty years in the city. We are totally shocked and appalled by this disclosure and immediately cancel our tour in order to return to our native country, realizing we will learn nothing from Coalition leaders about addressing any of the needs of human beings, let alone children, and admonishing the Coalition to immediately change the focus of their efforts from “abolishing poverty” to abolishing child-killing.

**********

[This parable needs only one distinction be made in order to clearly reflect the reality of our decrepit condition: Mothers don’t dump their children on the streets of St. John’s. It’s certainly too visible but also unnecessary. The government pays abortionists to kill their children and dispose of them in a dumpster or sell their body parts to various private enterprise firms.]

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.

Vote Life, Canada! Video Of News Surrounding Arrest Of Eric Alcock

The shocking details of the "set-up" to arrest Eric Alcock by leaders of the Religious Social Action Coalition in St. John's, NL.

Control Freaks, Religious Hypocrites And Other Such Cowards

More posting is due later today on my “arrest” two days ago which was orchestrated by religious hypocrites in my fair province who were concerned only about the “politically correct” version of poverty and about keeping the thoughts and minds of an entire province under their anesthetizing control.

Speaking of control—and religious hypocrites—Father Frank Pavone had a beautiful short answer yesterday on his blog to those concerned about the negligence, and yes, even the obstruction, of Christian leaders in the pursuit of justice for the Unborn.

Father Pavone notes in his last sentence that victory is assured for the pro-life movement. WE WILL WIN.

But let’s not let up for a minute in the meanwhile. Children waiting to see God’s glorious creation are depending upon us.

**********

Control Freaks

Dear Friends:

There’s increasing frustration out in the grassroots over the timid response of the Church to the abortion problem. As an organization with the name “Priests for Life”, of course, we receive a lot of questions about why the Church doesn’t do more in this arena.

It’s more and more clear to me that the answer can be summarized in the word “control.”

Put simply, there are too many leaders in the Church who are more concerned about controlling God’s work than about doing God’s work. The control freaks want everything done at their command and according to their specifications - or not done at all. The apostles fell into this temptation at a certain point until Jesus set them straight. Here’s what we read in Mark 9:38-40: “Teacher,’ said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.” “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us.”

The good news is that the pro-life movement does not take kindly to control freaks. In fact, it completely frustrates them, because this is not a movement with a puppet-master. Nobody controls it “from above.” Rather, its energy, creativity, and perseverance flows from the very depths of the humanity of each and every citizen (of whatever religious background) who comes to realize what abortion is.

In an emergency in which many lives are being taken and many more are at stake, people band together, gather the resources they need, and come to the rescue of the victims. They need not wait for any permission; they need not work under any particular banner or title. They are, after all, human. That’s all the title and permission they need to save their fellow humans. And they know it.

That’s why the movement will succeed.

Fr. Frank

VOCM Radio Interviews Eric Alcock On His Arrest By Police Yesterday For Defending The Unborn

Developments in connection with yesterday’s arrest are ongoing.

I’m very busy preparing a series of posts on this event, which, like turning over a rock, has exposed other creepy critters.

In the interim I’ve prepared this little item to keep readers informed. This is an interview which took place today on VOCM radio St. John’s—on perhaps the busiest talk show program in the province.

Be advised though: radio interviews are not my forté. I do my best.

However, it is sure to generate more conversation throughout the province.

And we sure do need it.

Arrested By Police For The First Time For Representing The Unborn

[Preface: No, that's not me in Ronald MacDonald outfit...it just seemed like such an appropriate picture considering the treatment I received.]

I just returned from my “visit” to The Lantern, where a Press Conference was to be held at 11AM to announce the goals of a new religious group based in St. John’s, NL, named the “Religious Social Action Coalition,” a coalition aiming to abolish poverty in the province.

My previous post carried the press release which was forwarded to the NL media late yesterday afternoon by Vote Life, Canada! after I was alerted to the Press Conference by email.

I was hoping to have an opportunity at this Conference to clarify further my concerns to the religious leaders of this coalition, some of the members of which I have met on previous occasions prior to the formation of this coalition. So I was dressed up in my Sunday best, hoping to say a few words on behalf of the Unborn of Newfoundland and Labrador and of Canada.

I should have suspected something was cooking when I walked inside the building and around the corner were two police officers in full uniform. It was about five minutes before the conference was due to start. Walking past them and into the Conference room, it was only perhaps two minutes before a burly looking gentleman approached me with outreached hand, asking me my name, to which I responded. Immediately he grasped my hand tightly as if to hold me in that exact position while informing me that I was not welcome there and that I must immediately leave.

I was rather stunned at this rare gesture of welcome and advised him that the Coalition’s announcement that was issued indicated that it was a public event and that all were welcome. He said he would call for the police to remove me if I did not leave immediately and then motioned to another man who was listening to the conversation to fetch the police. I asked the burly gentleman why I could not stay and he told me that I had said some very bad things about them in yesterday’s press release and that I must immediately leave.

By that time the police arrived, telling me that my invitation was rescinded by these people and that I must immediately leave the premises, which were private property, or failing that, I would be removed by police.

It was becoming a little bit of a scene with voices being raised but no yelling or screaming. Since my knees felt a little weak, the officers promptly took me by the shoulders, body and bones, and literally dragged me out of the building, all the while I was yelling loudly so people could hear me “Poverty begins with the Unborn! Poverty begins with the Unborn!”

The officers took me to the paddy wagon [no handcuffs!], making sure on the way to inform me that my little media circus was not going to work. They locked me up for the hour that the Conference was taking place. I heard them discussing various things outside the police wagon and then finally they released me, saying they were not going to lay charges. They didn't call it an arrest. They noted that they had simply "detained" me.

Sure felt like an arrest.

I’ve had no calls from media yet although I suspect I will soon enough. As the officers were dragging me out, a news photographer was taking pictures and other media were present as well.

Obviously the religious leaders, many of them “Christians,” did not wish to have their hypocrisy highlighted. They had planned to silence me entirely before I could even say a word and they had arranged for the local police to act as their thugs and bouncers.

More on this story to come.

By the way, the statement that I hoped to make at the conference, given the opportunity, appears below.

********** 

I am here today to represent the poorest children of NL—those who are denied the right to live. Those who will never get to the point of worrying about how much food, clothing, housing or education they receive. 

And I apologize to anyone here today who has gone on record publicly to denounce legalized child-killing. Looking over the names on this list I was not aware that anyone there had made announcements to newspapers or radios protesting the atrocity taking place in our midst. Nor do I remember seeing any of the above named individuals protesting in front of the local abortuary where five or six hundred little children each year are cut to pieces or suctioned to death. 

So pardon me, but I didn’t know anyone here was concerned about the challenges that the children of NL face. 

Forgive me.  

Today you are here to announce the fact that you ARE concerned about children after all. You want to see that children receive proper food, clothing, housing and education.  

This is a good thing. As I said in our press release, this is noble. 

However, what I find curious is that there still is no mention made of the children being ripped out of the womb. Does that concern the Religious Social Action Coalition? Is that not the greatest injustice taking place against children in this province? Shouldn’t that at least be stated as such by the Coalition?

Perhaps the Coalition is not ready at this time to tackle such a monstrous evil but shouldn’t they at least state for the record that this is the worst injustice taking place against children? 

Without such an acknowledgement the Coalition’s project has no credibility. How does the Coalition expect that poverty can be addressed—even abolished—while child killing is permitted? Will politicians respect a child’s right to be fed and clothed as long as they don’t respect the child’s right to live? 

But what the Coalition is really saying is this:

"Abortion? Oh, we’ve given up on that objective. That’s now legal and well accepted in our society, so whether it is or isn’t the greatest form of child abuse is irrelevant. People want it and accept it and the government says it’s legal so we’ll leave it at that.

We must work on achievable goals." 

I therefore have a question for the Coalition:

If the government passes a law today which says that the poor are entitled to no more than is currently available to them, will the Social Action Coalition then move on to another goal? 

Do you not see the hypocrisy oozing from this whole scenario? 

Do children have certain rights or not? Do they even have the right to live? That is the question.

Press Release: Vote Life, Canada! Warns St. John's Religious Social Action Coalition Of Blindness & Hypocrisy

In response to an email yesterday asking for support for a group calling themselves the Religious Social Action Coalition, whose goal is to abolish poverty in Newfoundland, Vote Life Canada! issued the following press release to various media throughout Newfoundland:

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Vote Life, Canada! Recognizes the Noble Objective of the Religious Social Action Coalition to Abolish Poverty but Warns Them to Advocate First for Unborn Children In Order to Avoid Charges of Blindness and Hypocrisy

Issued by:
Vote Life, Canada!
National Address: 1075 Bay St., Suite A102-602,
Toronto, ON, M5S 2B2

Contact: Eric Alcock, President and NL Provincial Director, Vote Life, Canada! 709-773-0700

St. John’s, NL September 4—Vote Life, Canada! has learned of the existence and goals of the Religious Social Action Coalition of Newfoundland & Labrador and of a Press Conference Wednesday, September 5 at 11AM at The Lantern, 35 Barnes Road.

Does this Coalition of well meaning religious leaders not recognize the hypocrisy in their efforts?

How is it possible that Christian leaders and other men and women of good faith can call on the people of NL, and more particularly its politicians, to make poverty a voting issue when every year nearly 1000 little children are violently killed in the womb in this province and the virtual silence of those same leaders is deafening?

Furthermore, every child killing which takes place in this province is perfectly “legal” in the sight of our society and is paid for by taxpayer dollars, the same dollars which could be channeled to feed and clothe other children. Yet these same leaders do not protest.

To what depths of blindness and hypocrisy have our leaders descended?

Have any leaders of this coalition been seen protesting the dismemberment and poisoning of unborn children which takes place daily in our very city? Yet they now pretend to be concerned about hungry children.

The saddest and most naïve element of their plan is that they expect that poverty can be addressed—even abolished—while child killing is permitted. Will politicians respect a child’s right to be fed and clothed as long as they don’t respect the child’s right to live?

Leaders of this coalition are not thinking straight. What sort of fairy tale world are they living in?

Vote Life, Canada! will be in attendance tomorrow at the press conference, representing the unborn children of this province. Eric Alcock, President and NL Provincial Director of Vote Life, Canada! will be ready to sign up on the spot for membership in the Social Action Coalition—just as soon as the Coalition calls for legalized abortion as the number one voting issue in the upcoming NL election.