Here's a question for all you women out there. Imagine that you were pregnant and wanted to keep your baby. Your boyfriend disagrees and wants you to abort. According to "pro-choice" principles, it should be your decision, right? After all, you're the one carrying the baby.
Now imagine that your boyfriend secretly feeds you a pill that causes you to have a miscarriage. It starts off as stomach cramps, but when you get to the emergency ward you lose the baby. Your boyfriend killed the baby that you wanted so dearly.
Now suppose that the courts had no regard for the fact that you lost your baby. They don't care about your baby or about your feelings. Your boyfriend is simply charged with aggravated assault and administering a toxic substance. No consideration is given to your child.
Would you call that a pro-choice society that respects your choice to keep your baby?
As you probably guessed, this is not an imaginary scenario. It happenend in Montreal just a few years ago. Read the story yourself at CBC's website: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/05/19/misarriage_justice0140519.html
This wouldn't happen if we had a law like Bill C-484 that would make it a separate crime for an abusive boyfriend to take away your unborn baby.
Tell your MP that Canada needs this law in order to advance women's rights.
Don't listen to those pseudo-feminists out there who claim that Bill C-484 will imperil a woman's right to have an abortion. This is not about abortion. It's about a woman's right to choose to keep her baby. Ignore those fanatics and tell your MP to support C-484.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Bill C-484 brings out worst in pro-aborts
Pro-aborts in Canada is getting worked up about bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act. This bill seeks to make it a separate crime to kill an unborn baby. Sounds like a reasonable proposition for a civilized society, right? After all, science has proven without a doubt that an unborn baby is a live human being that is distinct from her mother. Among the piles of evidence, which could fill volumes of medical journals, we need only cite the fact that the unborn child has a distinct DNA from her mother, which is an unmistakable sign that she is not part of her body. Case closed.
But pro-aborts will not tolerate this bill. The "right to choose" does not apply to women who choose to keep their babies and pursue their pregnancy. So if some brute comes along and assaults an expectant mother, thus killing the baby in her tummy, too bad so sad. Get over it girl. It was just a "clump of cells" in your belly.
Case in point: this month, Alan Bryan of Nova Scotia was sentenced to 15 years in jail for his brutal attack on his then-pregnant girlfriend Charlene Knapp. The crimes? Attempted murder of Charlene, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and possession of a dangerous weapon. No murder charge for killing the baby by stabbing it with a sword.
Charlene was 8 months pregnant. "I lost my son (who) was my future," she said.
But the pro-aborts have little sympathy for Charlene. They have launched a campaign against the bill called "One body. One person. One count."
Nice catchy phrase, but so erroneus you'd think they were still reading medical textbooks from the Middle Ages. Modern science has destroyed the "one body" myth. That "clump of cells" in the ultrasound sure looks a lot like a human. What a coincidence that the clump lines up that way, eh? Not only does an unborn child have her own distinct DNA, she also has her own heart beat, arms, legs, head, etc. Gee, do pregnant women temporarily grow an extra heart and a few spare limbs? Those spare parts could sure come in handy, especially the brain, which seems dramatically deficient in some pro-aborts.
Grow up. We're not in the Middle Ages anymore.
The pro-aborts, in their typical exemplary altruism, are barking that the grief of women like Charlene must be ignored. In fact, they despise Charlene's tears and the media attention she gets because it draws Canadians' attention to a gaping hole in our justice system.
For the pro-aborts, Charlene is just too emotion. No murder was committed. Just an assault on a woman with an inflated belly. Perhaps she was just overweight? At most she only had a cumbersome "clump of cells" in her womb that doesn't count. But certainly no baby in there. In fact, you should be happy, Charlene, because it will be easier to fasten your seatbelt now. You'll also be able to fit into your old clothes again. Your ex did you a favour. We sent him a Hallmark on your behalf.
Pro-aborts are so determined to cling to their license to kill their unwanted babies that they won't let the wanted babies be safe either.
An Environics poll released in late 2007 showed that 72% of Canadians and 75% of women support a law that would make it a separate crime to kill a fetus during an attack on a pregnant woman. That's an overwhelming majority. You'll rarely find such a consensus on any subject in this country.
If democracy is to be served, this bill must be passed. Make sure your MP knows your opinion.
But pro-aborts will not tolerate this bill. The "right to choose" does not apply to women who choose to keep their babies and pursue their pregnancy. So if some brute comes along and assaults an expectant mother, thus killing the baby in her tummy, too bad so sad. Get over it girl. It was just a "clump of cells" in your belly.
Case in point: this month, Alan Bryan of Nova Scotia was sentenced to 15 years in jail for his brutal attack on his then-pregnant girlfriend Charlene Knapp. The crimes? Attempted murder of Charlene, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and possession of a dangerous weapon. No murder charge for killing the baby by stabbing it with a sword.
Charlene was 8 months pregnant. "I lost my son (who) was my future," she said.
But the pro-aborts have little sympathy for Charlene. They have launched a campaign against the bill called "One body. One person. One count."
Nice catchy phrase, but so erroneus you'd think they were still reading medical textbooks from the Middle Ages. Modern science has destroyed the "one body" myth. That "clump of cells" in the ultrasound sure looks a lot like a human. What a coincidence that the clump lines up that way, eh? Not only does an unborn child have her own distinct DNA, she also has her own heart beat, arms, legs, head, etc. Gee, do pregnant women temporarily grow an extra heart and a few spare limbs? Those spare parts could sure come in handy, especially the brain, which seems dramatically deficient in some pro-aborts.
Grow up. We're not in the Middle Ages anymore.
The pro-aborts, in their typical exemplary altruism, are barking that the grief of women like Charlene must be ignored. In fact, they despise Charlene's tears and the media attention she gets because it draws Canadians' attention to a gaping hole in our justice system.
For the pro-aborts, Charlene is just too emotion. No murder was committed. Just an assault on a woman with an inflated belly. Perhaps she was just overweight? At most she only had a cumbersome "clump of cells" in her womb that doesn't count. But certainly no baby in there. In fact, you should be happy, Charlene, because it will be easier to fasten your seatbelt now. You'll also be able to fit into your old clothes again. Your ex did you a favour. We sent him a Hallmark on your behalf.
Pro-aborts are so determined to cling to their license to kill their unwanted babies that they won't let the wanted babies be safe either.
An Environics poll released in late 2007 showed that 72% of Canadians and 75% of women support a law that would make it a separate crime to kill a fetus during an attack on a pregnant woman. That's an overwhelming majority. You'll rarely find such a consensus on any subject in this country.
If democracy is to be served, this bill must be passed. Make sure your MP knows your opinion.
Monday, February 18, 2008
McGuinty is ashamed to be an Ontarian
I am very disappointed by Premier McGuinty's suggestion of removing the Lord's Prayer from legislative business.
Ontario has a Christian heritage. The most recent available data from Statistics Canada says that 75% of Ontarians identify themselves as Christians. No other group comes close.
I understand that Ontario also has other small religious communities. They are most welcome in our province. However, that doesn't mean that we should deny who we are.
The Premier's proposal sounds like he is ashamed to be an Ontarian. He is so insecure about our cultural and religious heritage that he feels that we need to be apologizing to other religious groups who don't even feel offended.
If we follow the Premier's logic, we should start speaking Chinese or Arab in the Legislature just to be more "accomodating." After all, only 71% of Ontarians identify English as their mother tongue, a smaller percentage than the share of Christians.
So if we're going to ban a Christian prayer in the Legislature, why not ban English? Why should everybody speak English? Isn't that intolerant too? Why not a free for all?
McGuinty's proposal has no logic and just anti-Christian bigotry. Period.
He can claim he's a Christian, but he isn't. Everything he says and does proves it.
He's like a polar bear who paints himself in black and yellow and then claims to be a penguin. Nice try, Dalton, but you ain't foolin' anybody.
Ontario has a Christian heritage. The most recent available data from Statistics Canada says that 75% of Ontarians identify themselves as Christians. No other group comes close.
I understand that Ontario also has other small religious communities. They are most welcome in our province. However, that doesn't mean that we should deny who we are.
The Premier's proposal sounds like he is ashamed to be an Ontarian. He is so insecure about our cultural and religious heritage that he feels that we need to be apologizing to other religious groups who don't even feel offended.
If we follow the Premier's logic, we should start speaking Chinese or Arab in the Legislature just to be more "accomodating." After all, only 71% of Ontarians identify English as their mother tongue, a smaller percentage than the share of Christians.
So if we're going to ban a Christian prayer in the Legislature, why not ban English? Why should everybody speak English? Isn't that intolerant too? Why not a free for all?
McGuinty's proposal has no logic and just anti-Christian bigotry. Period.
He can claim he's a Christian, but he isn't. Everything he says and does proves it.
He's like a polar bear who paints himself in black and yellow and then claims to be a penguin. Nice try, Dalton, but you ain't foolin' anybody.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Pro-Aborts Don't Seem To Care About Anybody But #1
Pro-aborts in Canada is getting worked up about bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act. This bill seeks to make it a separate crime to kill an unborn baby.
Sounds like a reasonable proposition for a civilized society, right? After all, science has proven without a doubt that an unborn baby is a live human being that is distinct from her mother. Among the piles of evidence, which could fill volumes of medical journals, we need only cite the fact that the unborn child has a distinct DNA from her mother, which is an unmistakable sign that she is not part of her body. Case closed.
But pro-aborts will not tolerate this bill. The "right to choose" does not apply to women who choose to keep their babies and pursue their pregnancy. So if some brute comes along and assaults an expectant mother, thus killing the baby in her tummy, too bad so sad. Get over it girl. It was just a "clump of cells" in your belly.
Case in point: last week, Alan Bryan of Nova Scotia was sentenced to 15 years in jail for his brutal attack on his then-pregnant girlfriend Charlene Knapp. The crimes? Attempted murder of Charlene, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and possession of a dangerous weapon. No murder charge for killing the baby by stabbing it with a sword.
Charlene was 8 months pregnant. "I lost my son (who) was my future," she said.
But the pro-aborts have no sympathy for Charlene. They have launched a campaign against the bill called "One body. One person. One count." Nice catchy phrase, but so erroneus you'd think they were still reading medical textbooks from the Middle Ages, when lobotomies were the latest breakthrough.
Reminds me of smoking. Back in the 1950s, we didn't know that smoking was bad for our health. Today, anybody with a semblance of a brain knows that cigarettes are toxic.
Likewise, modern science has destroyed the "one body" myth. That "clump of cells" in the ultrasound sure looks a lot like a human. What a coincidence that the clump lines up that way, eh?
Not only does an unborn child have her own distinct DNA, she also has her own heart beat, arms, legs, head, etc. Gee, do pregnant women temporarily grow an extra heart and a few spare limbs? Those spare parts could sure come in handy, especially the brain, which seems dramatically deficient in some pro-aborts.
Grow up. We're not in the Middle Ages anymore.
The pro-aborts, in their typical exemplary altruism, are barking that the grief of women like Charlene must be ignored. In fact, they despise Charlene's tears and the media attention she gets because it draws Canadians' attention to a gaping hole in our justice system.
For the pro-aborts, Charlene is just too emotion. No murder was committed. Just an assault on a woman with an inflated belly. Perhaps she was just overweight? At most she only had a cumbersome "clump of cells" in her womb that doesn't count. But certainly no baby in there. In fact, you should be happy, Charlene, because it will be easier to fasten your seatbelt now. You'll also be able to fit into your old clothes again. Your ex did you a favour. We sent him a Hallmark on your behalf.
Once again, the pro-aborts are showing their true colors. They are so determined to cling to their license to kill their unwanted babies that they won't let the wanted babies be safe either.
The most tragic part of the story is that our political leaders are unlikely to support this bill because their IQ is even lower than the pro-aborts. Unless Canadians put some pressure on them.
That's not asking much. An Environics poll released in late 2007 showed that 72% of Canadians and 75% of women support a law that would make it a separate crime to kill a fetus during an attack on a pregnant woman. That's an overwhelming majority.
But where will those Canadians be when the politicians are voting on the issue? Will Canadians demand a change to legislation? What will YOU do about?
Make a move. It could be your baby that is killed with impunity someday.
Sounds like a reasonable proposition for a civilized society, right? After all, science has proven without a doubt that an unborn baby is a live human being that is distinct from her mother. Among the piles of evidence, which could fill volumes of medical journals, we need only cite the fact that the unborn child has a distinct DNA from her mother, which is an unmistakable sign that she is not part of her body. Case closed.
But pro-aborts will not tolerate this bill. The "right to choose" does not apply to women who choose to keep their babies and pursue their pregnancy. So if some brute comes along and assaults an expectant mother, thus killing the baby in her tummy, too bad so sad. Get over it girl. It was just a "clump of cells" in your belly.
Case in point: last week, Alan Bryan of Nova Scotia was sentenced to 15 years in jail for his brutal attack on his then-pregnant girlfriend Charlene Knapp. The crimes? Attempted murder of Charlene, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and possession of a dangerous weapon. No murder charge for killing the baby by stabbing it with a sword.
Charlene was 8 months pregnant. "I lost my son (who) was my future," she said.
But the pro-aborts have no sympathy for Charlene. They have launched a campaign against the bill called "One body. One person. One count." Nice catchy phrase, but so erroneus you'd think they were still reading medical textbooks from the Middle Ages, when lobotomies were the latest breakthrough.
Reminds me of smoking. Back in the 1950s, we didn't know that smoking was bad for our health. Today, anybody with a semblance of a brain knows that cigarettes are toxic.
Likewise, modern science has destroyed the "one body" myth. That "clump of cells" in the ultrasound sure looks a lot like a human. What a coincidence that the clump lines up that way, eh?
Not only does an unborn child have her own distinct DNA, she also has her own heart beat, arms, legs, head, etc. Gee, do pregnant women temporarily grow an extra heart and a few spare limbs? Those spare parts could sure come in handy, especially the brain, which seems dramatically deficient in some pro-aborts.
Grow up. We're not in the Middle Ages anymore.
The pro-aborts, in their typical exemplary altruism, are barking that the grief of women like Charlene must be ignored. In fact, they despise Charlene's tears and the media attention she gets because it draws Canadians' attention to a gaping hole in our justice system.
For the pro-aborts, Charlene is just too emotion. No murder was committed. Just an assault on a woman with an inflated belly. Perhaps she was just overweight? At most she only had a cumbersome "clump of cells" in her womb that doesn't count. But certainly no baby in there. In fact, you should be happy, Charlene, because it will be easier to fasten your seatbelt now. You'll also be able to fit into your old clothes again. Your ex did you a favour. We sent him a Hallmark on your behalf.
Once again, the pro-aborts are showing their true colors. They are so determined to cling to their license to kill their unwanted babies that they won't let the wanted babies be safe either.
The most tragic part of the story is that our political leaders are unlikely to support this bill because their IQ is even lower than the pro-aborts. Unless Canadians put some pressure on them.
That's not asking much. An Environics poll released in late 2007 showed that 72% of Canadians and 75% of women support a law that would make it a separate crime to kill a fetus during an attack on a pregnant woman. That's an overwhelming majority.
But where will those Canadians be when the politicians are voting on the issue? Will Canadians demand a change to legislation? What will YOU do about?
Make a move. It could be your baby that is killed with impunity someday.
Canadian Only Sentenced for Attempted Murder Despite Killing Unborn Child
By John-Henry Westen
DARTMOUTH, February 15, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Alan Bryan, 43, of Nova Scotia, was sentenced to 15 years in jail Thursday for his brutal attack on his then-pregnant girlfriend Charlene Knapp. Knapp, 28, was four months pregnant on July 31 when Bryan stabbed her up to 15 times with a sword. Knapp survived the attack, but the child in her womb was killed.
Despite his killing the unborn child, Bryan was never charged with murder, since a child in utero is not considered a human being in Canadian law. A bill before the legislature seeks to remedy that situation. Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime act would make it a separate crime to kill an unborn child during an act of violence against the mother. It is scheduled to be voted on in the Commons on March 5th.
Knapp, who was due to give birth this month, told Canwest News Service, "I just had to be here to see him go away, to know that he will never take anything else from me again."
Knapp still suffers from the attack and walks with a cane. "I lost my son (who) was my future," she said.
Bryan pleaded guilty to attempted murder, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and possession of a dangerous weapon.
"The case of Charlene Knapp, who was stabbed multiple times last summer, clearly demonstrates the need for a legislation like Bill C-484," said Marie Christine Houle, Executive Director of Women for Women's Health, an organization that has worked with families of victims of similar incidents to lobby for the legislation.
"Knapp was targeted BECAUSE she was pregnant. She was stripped of her right to hold and care for her child" said Houle.
"The Canadian government should acknowledge the tremendous loss that is the death of a desired unborn baby because of a violent and in this case vicious attack. We urge the Members of Parliaments to ponder what type of message they are sending about the importance of motherhood should they chose to vote against this bill on March 5th."
DARTMOUTH, February 15, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Alan Bryan, 43, of Nova Scotia, was sentenced to 15 years in jail Thursday for his brutal attack on his then-pregnant girlfriend Charlene Knapp. Knapp, 28, was four months pregnant on July 31 when Bryan stabbed her up to 15 times with a sword. Knapp survived the attack, but the child in her womb was killed.
Despite his killing the unborn child, Bryan was never charged with murder, since a child in utero is not considered a human being in Canadian law. A bill before the legislature seeks to remedy that situation. Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime act would make it a separate crime to kill an unborn child during an act of violence against the mother. It is scheduled to be voted on in the Commons on March 5th.
Knapp, who was due to give birth this month, told Canwest News Service, "I just had to be here to see him go away, to know that he will never take anything else from me again."
Knapp still suffers from the attack and walks with a cane. "I lost my son (who) was my future," she said.
Bryan pleaded guilty to attempted murder, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and possession of a dangerous weapon.
"The case of Charlene Knapp, who was stabbed multiple times last summer, clearly demonstrates the need for a legislation like Bill C-484," said Marie Christine Houle, Executive Director of Women for Women's Health, an organization that has worked with families of victims of similar incidents to lobby for the legislation.
"Knapp was targeted BECAUSE she was pregnant. She was stripped of her right to hold and care for her child" said Houle.
"The Canadian government should acknowledge the tremendous loss that is the death of a desired unborn baby because of a violent and in this case vicious attack. We urge the Members of Parliaments to ponder what type of message they are sending about the importance of motherhood should they chose to vote against this bill on March 5th."
Healthy Chocolate To Support Pro-Life Causes!
Do you like chocolate? I LOVE it!
Did you know that pure chocolate is very healthy? It was a real revelation for me.
Now I'm selling healthy chocolates and donating the proceeds to pro-life causes.
Check it out at this site! You'll be improving your health while supporting pro-life causes!
No more guilt when you eat chocolate!
Did you know that pure chocolate is very healthy? It was a real revelation for me.
Now I'm selling healthy chocolates and donating the proceeds to pro-life causes.
Check it out at this site! You'll be improving your health while supporting pro-life causes!
No more guilt when you eat chocolate!
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Whimpy Harper doesn't care about free speech
Stephen Harper is proving to be a merciless political opportunist.
Canadians are having their freedom of speech threatened (see article below), but the Prime Minster has ordered his party to remain silent on the issue, probably out of fear of losing some "left-wing" votes. In the process, he is alienating "right-wing" voters. In the end, Harper may end up losing both sides.
Harper has frequently abandoned policies that appeal to the Right because he figures that conservatives have nowhere else to park their vote. Well Stephen, watch out in the next election. Some of us will stay home on election night rather than vote for a PM that takes us for granted.
Read this awesome article that appeared in today's National Post by Kathy Shaidle.
Gag me with a memo
Free speech is being undermined by 'human rights.' Why is Stephen Harper averting his gaze?
By Kathy Shaidle, National Post
Published: Wednesday, February 13, 2008
The federal Justice Minister's Irony Detector must be in the shop for a tune-up. How else to explain the memo issued by Rob Nicholson's office to every Conservative MP last week?
According to Al Siebring at NoApologies.ca, who leaked the confidential memo entitled Talking Points re: CHRA & CHRC, "it basically instructs MPs to keep a very low profile on any discussion surrounding Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act."
[Quick note: "Talking Points" are pre-written lines that politicians are supposed to use when asked about thorny issues.]
I suppose those bloggers who've been running netroots "free speech" campaigns since late last year can look at it this way: That "Talking Points" memo shows that the government has indeed been getting all our calls, faxes and e-mails.
Too bad the PMO's response to citizens' concerns about the erosion of their free speech rights is to issue a (secret) document, telling our elected representatives to keep quiet or change the subject.
Sounds more like a "(Stop) Talking Points" memo. Let's review:
Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant, along with Maclean's magazine and columnist Mark Steyn, are being hauled before various Canadian human rights commissions (CHRCs): the former for publishing the controversial "Muhammad" cartoons, the latter for excerpting Steyn's bestselling book America Alone.
Self-styled representatives of the Muslim community accuse Levant and Maclean's of violating the Canadian Human Rights Act, because what they published is allegedly, in the words of Section 13.1, "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt."
Note that magic word "likely." No need to prove that these publications inspired actual hate crimes, like arson or assault. Rather, appointed CHRC bureaucrats need merely deem it "likely" that the Western Standard or Maclean's magazine might inspire persons unknown to commit offenses of some sort or other between now and the end of the world.
It's "thought crime" meets "future crime," but without the cool flying cars you'd at least get in a dystopian sci-fi flick.
[Quick note: the burden of proof in CHRC hearings is much lower than in a regular court trial. You don't need to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt". Often, the hearings are not presided by a judge or even a lawyer, but rather some bureaucrat. The plaintiff never pays his/her legal fees (they're paid through your taxes) while the defendant always pays his/her legal fees, even if found innocent. Typically, the plaintiff always wins.]
As word of this Orwellian state of affairs spread beyond Canadian bloggers into the mainstream media, it was a Liberal MP, Dr. Keith Martin, who introduced private members motion M-446, which reads: "That, in the opinion of the House, subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be deleted from the Act."
In fact, as Ezra Levant himself observed on his website yesterday, Liberals like Martin, not to mention the Alberta Liberal party, have displayed more vocal, principled opposition to CHRC abuses than their Conservative counterparts.
Sure enough, the Justice Minister's "Talking Points" memo consists mostly of empty calorie cliches.
If asked about the Levant and Steyn cases by journalists or constituents, Conservative MPs are instructed to stress that the Harper government "is committed to the protection and promotion of human rights," and add that "Canada's record on human rights is second to none."
Then, if "asked about the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) and its processes," the memo advises, "refer [the] letter writer to the CHRC's website."
[Quick note: Regular people would call this "avoiding the question"]
Sounds like that twist ending to many a horror film, when the lone survivor is finally "rescued" -- and driven right back to the zombie compound.
Finally, MPs are told to steer the subject away from Keith Martin's call to amend Section 13, and to focus instead on the "government's ongoing efforts" -- which many "free speech" frontliners are hearing about for the first time-- "to repeal Section 67 of the Act." This is the provision that, as the memo explains, exempts First Nations "from receiving the same legal protection against discrimination that is afforded to all other Canadians."
A worthy goal, but please: One normally has to attend a high school talent show to witness such amateur sleight of hand.
When bloggers first heard of the accusations against Steyn and Levant, and began mounting campaigns to "stop the CHRCs" from further stifling freedom of speech, many were encouraged by a rediscovered, then widely circulated, quotation from future Prime Minister Stephen Harper, circa 1999:
"Human Rights Commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society … It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff."
Looks like Stephen Harper lost a few things during his move to 24 Sussex Drive. Namely, a principle or two.
- Kathy Shaidle blogs at FiveFeetOfFury.com.
Canadians are having their freedom of speech threatened (see article below), but the Prime Minster has ordered his party to remain silent on the issue, probably out of fear of losing some "left-wing" votes. In the process, he is alienating "right-wing" voters. In the end, Harper may end up losing both sides.
Harper has frequently abandoned policies that appeal to the Right because he figures that conservatives have nowhere else to park their vote. Well Stephen, watch out in the next election. Some of us will stay home on election night rather than vote for a PM that takes us for granted.
Read this awesome article that appeared in today's National Post by Kathy Shaidle.
Gag me with a memo
Free speech is being undermined by 'human rights.' Why is Stephen Harper averting his gaze?
By Kathy Shaidle, National Post
Published: Wednesday, February 13, 2008
The federal Justice Minister's Irony Detector must be in the shop for a tune-up. How else to explain the memo issued by Rob Nicholson's office to every Conservative MP last week?
According to Al Siebring at NoApologies.ca, who leaked the confidential memo entitled Talking Points re: CHRA & CHRC, "it basically instructs MPs to keep a very low profile on any discussion surrounding Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act."
[Quick note: "Talking Points" are pre-written lines that politicians are supposed to use when asked about thorny issues.]
I suppose those bloggers who've been running netroots "free speech" campaigns since late last year can look at it this way: That "Talking Points" memo shows that the government has indeed been getting all our calls, faxes and e-mails.
Too bad the PMO's response to citizens' concerns about the erosion of their free speech rights is to issue a (secret) document, telling our elected representatives to keep quiet or change the subject.
Sounds more like a "(Stop) Talking Points" memo. Let's review:
Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant, along with Maclean's magazine and columnist Mark Steyn, are being hauled before various Canadian human rights commissions (CHRCs): the former for publishing the controversial "Muhammad" cartoons, the latter for excerpting Steyn's bestselling book America Alone.
Self-styled representatives of the Muslim community accuse Levant and Maclean's of violating the Canadian Human Rights Act, because what they published is allegedly, in the words of Section 13.1, "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt."
Note that magic word "likely." No need to prove that these publications inspired actual hate crimes, like arson or assault. Rather, appointed CHRC bureaucrats need merely deem it "likely" that the Western Standard or Maclean's magazine might inspire persons unknown to commit offenses of some sort or other between now and the end of the world.
It's "thought crime" meets "future crime," but without the cool flying cars you'd at least get in a dystopian sci-fi flick.
[Quick note: the burden of proof in CHRC hearings is much lower than in a regular court trial. You don't need to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt". Often, the hearings are not presided by a judge or even a lawyer, but rather some bureaucrat. The plaintiff never pays his/her legal fees (they're paid through your taxes) while the defendant always pays his/her legal fees, even if found innocent. Typically, the plaintiff always wins.]
As word of this Orwellian state of affairs spread beyond Canadian bloggers into the mainstream media, it was a Liberal MP, Dr. Keith Martin, who introduced private members motion M-446, which reads: "That, in the opinion of the House, subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be deleted from the Act."
In fact, as Ezra Levant himself observed on his website yesterday, Liberals like Martin, not to mention the Alberta Liberal party, have displayed more vocal, principled opposition to CHRC abuses than their Conservative counterparts.
Sure enough, the Justice Minister's "Talking Points" memo consists mostly of empty calorie cliches.
If asked about the Levant and Steyn cases by journalists or constituents, Conservative MPs are instructed to stress that the Harper government "is committed to the protection and promotion of human rights," and add that "Canada's record on human rights is second to none."
Then, if "asked about the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) and its processes," the memo advises, "refer [the] letter writer to the CHRC's website."
[Quick note: Regular people would call this "avoiding the question"]
Sounds like that twist ending to many a horror film, when the lone survivor is finally "rescued" -- and driven right back to the zombie compound.
Finally, MPs are told to steer the subject away from Keith Martin's call to amend Section 13, and to focus instead on the "government's ongoing efforts" -- which many "free speech" frontliners are hearing about for the first time-- "to repeal Section 67 of the Act." This is the provision that, as the memo explains, exempts First Nations "from receiving the same legal protection against discrimination that is afforded to all other Canadians."
A worthy goal, but please: One normally has to attend a high school talent show to witness such amateur sleight of hand.
When bloggers first heard of the accusations against Steyn and Levant, and began mounting campaigns to "stop the CHRCs" from further stifling freedom of speech, many were encouraged by a rediscovered, then widely circulated, quotation from future Prime Minister Stephen Harper, circa 1999:
"Human Rights Commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society … It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff."
Looks like Stephen Harper lost a few things during his move to 24 Sussex Drive. Namely, a principle or two.
- Kathy Shaidle blogs at FiveFeetOfFury.com.
The myth of condoms for disease prevention
(Largely taken from an article of Zenit.org by Father John Flynn, LC)
The simplistic assumption that condoms are the solution to sexually transmitted diseases is increasingly being proved false. Let's forget morality issues for a moment and just focus on matters that can be proven by scientific facts.
In its Jan. 26 issue, the British Medical Journal published a forum on condoms, with contrasting articles for and against on the topic. Even the article in favor of condoms, by Markus Steiner and Willard Cates, admitted that in addition to condoms there is a need for "risk avoidance and risk reduction approaches." Such measures, they explained, include delayed initiation of sexual intercourse, and mutual faithfulness.
In his article putting forward the "no" case, Stephen Genuis clearly stated: "Firstly, condoms cannot be the definitive answer to sexually transmitted infection because they provide insufficient protection against transmission of many common diseases." Genius also pointed out that: "Epidemiological research repeatedly shows that condom familiarity and risk awareness do not result in sustained safer sex choices in real life."
Faced with such arguments about the failure of condoms and sex education campaigns, the reaction is often to call for more of the same. A typical example was the recent news from Australia, where it was found that 60% of Australian women who have unplanned pregnancies were using contraceptive pills or condoms. According to the Jan. 30 report by the Melbourne-based Age newspaper, family planning groups responded by calling for more sexual education programs. Similarly, in the days preceding Brazil's Carnival celebrations authorities announced they would be handing out 19.5 million free condoms, reported Reuters on Jan. 28.
Nevertheless, in his British Medical Journal article Genius pointed out the fallacy of such arguments. In relation to condom and "safe sex" campaigns, he said: "The relentless rise of sexually transmitted infection in the face of unprecedented education about and promotion of condoms is testament to the lack of success of this approach.
"In numerous large studies, concerted efforts to promote use of condoms has consistently failed to control rates of sexually transmitted infection -- even in countries with advanced sex education programs such as Canada, Sweden and Switzerland."
In countries such as Thailand and Cambodia, where sexually transmitted infections have diminished, Genius argued that a careful scrutiny of the data reveals that the changes resulted not from condom use, but from changes in sexual behavior.
Excessive reliance on condoms to combat HIV/AIDS in Africa was criticized in a book published last year. Helen Epstein, in "The Invisible Cure: Africa, The West, And the Fight Against Aids," (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux), also had reservations about sexual abstinence campaigns, but did admit the importance of changing sexual behavior.
In trying to find the causes of the high degree of infections in Africa, researchers found that a relatively high proportion of African men and women had simultaneous sexual relations with two or three partners. Compared to serial monogamy more common in Western countries, the concurrent relationships greatly increase the risk of a rapid diffusion of sexual diseases.
Epstein was highly critical of the AIDS campaigns run by Western groups. Organizations such as Population Services International, Family Health International and Marie Stopes International were first active in population control efforts, she noted. In more recent years their activity in campaigns promoting condom use resulted in publicity that in effect promoted sexual activity, and in some cases "bordered on the misogynistic," Epstein added. The message was that casual sex was nothing to worry about, so long as you used a condom. Apart from promoting behavior that only fueled infections, Epstein also commented that often the campaigns clashed with local sensibilities concerning decency and self-respect.
Epstein also criticized the organizations and the United Nations for playing down the role of infidelity in the spread of HIV/AIDS. She recounted her experience at an international AIDS conference in Bangkok, where researchers presenting evidence about the importance of fidelity in preventing infection were "practically booed off the stage."
Another book published last year, "The AIDS Pandemic: The Collision of Epidemiology With Political Correctness" (Radcliffe Publishing), also pointed out the need to change sexual behavior, instead of a wholesale reliance on condoms.
The positive contribution that religion can make in changing sexual behavior was recognized in a RAND Corporation study published last year. People who are HIV-positive and say religion is an important part of their lives are likely to have fewer sexual partners and are less likely to spread the virus, according to the study: "Religiosity, Denominational Affiliation and Sexual Behaviors Among People with HIV in the U.S."
"Religiosity is an untapped resource in the whole struggle against HIV and AIDS, and should be looked at more thoroughly," commented Frank Galvan, lead author of the study in the April 3 press release accompanying the report.
Christianity and sexuality
Authentic Christianity does not teach that sex is bad. On the contrary, sex is so awesome and sacred that it deserves special attention and consideration.
The Church's view about condoms does not base itself on to what extent it may help resolve health problems. Sexuality, explains No. 2332 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, affects all of the human person, body and soul. It's not some sort of sport or passtime. It concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and procreate, and forming communion with others. It is a very deep experience.e
Sexuality is truly human and personal when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, a relationship that is a complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman, the Catechism observes (No. 2337).
Benedict XVI addressed the HIV/AIDS issue in a couple of recent speeches made when receiving the credentials of new ambassadors. On Dec. 13, in his address to Peter Hitjitevi Katjavivi from Namibia, the Pope recognized the urgent need to halt the spread of infections.
"I assure the people of your country that the Church will continue to assist those who suffer from AIDS and to support their families," the Pope stated.
The Church's contribution to the goal of eradicating AIDS, the Pontiff continued, "cannot but draw its inspiration from the Christian conception of human love and sexuality." This vision sees marriage as a total, reciprocal and exclusive communion of love between a man and a woman, Benedict XVI explained.
The same day, in a speech to Elizabeth Ya Eli Harding, Gambia's new ambassador to the Holy See, the Pope stated that while medicine and education have a part to play in combating HIV/AIDS: "Promiscuous sexual conduct is a root cause of many moral and physical ills and must be overcome by promoting a culture of marital faithfulness and moral integrity."
The simplistic assumption that condoms are the solution to sexually transmitted diseases is increasingly being proved false. Let's forget morality issues for a moment and just focus on matters that can be proven by scientific facts.
In its Jan. 26 issue, the British Medical Journal published a forum on condoms, with contrasting articles for and against on the topic. Even the article in favor of condoms, by Markus Steiner and Willard Cates, admitted that in addition to condoms there is a need for "risk avoidance and risk reduction approaches." Such measures, they explained, include delayed initiation of sexual intercourse, and mutual faithfulness.
In his article putting forward the "no" case, Stephen Genuis clearly stated: "Firstly, condoms cannot be the definitive answer to sexually transmitted infection because they provide insufficient protection against transmission of many common diseases." Genius also pointed out that: "Epidemiological research repeatedly shows that condom familiarity and risk awareness do not result in sustained safer sex choices in real life."
Faced with such arguments about the failure of condoms and sex education campaigns, the reaction is often to call for more of the same. A typical example was the recent news from Australia, where it was found that 60% of Australian women who have unplanned pregnancies were using contraceptive pills or condoms. According to the Jan. 30 report by the Melbourne-based Age newspaper, family planning groups responded by calling for more sexual education programs. Similarly, in the days preceding Brazil's Carnival celebrations authorities announced they would be handing out 19.5 million free condoms, reported Reuters on Jan. 28.
Nevertheless, in his British Medical Journal article Genius pointed out the fallacy of such arguments. In relation to condom and "safe sex" campaigns, he said: "The relentless rise of sexually transmitted infection in the face of unprecedented education about and promotion of condoms is testament to the lack of success of this approach.
"In numerous large studies, concerted efforts to promote use of condoms has consistently failed to control rates of sexually transmitted infection -- even in countries with advanced sex education programs such as Canada, Sweden and Switzerland."
In countries such as Thailand and Cambodia, where sexually transmitted infections have diminished, Genius argued that a careful scrutiny of the data reveals that the changes resulted not from condom use, but from changes in sexual behavior.
Excessive reliance on condoms to combat HIV/AIDS in Africa was criticized in a book published last year. Helen Epstein, in "The Invisible Cure: Africa, The West, And the Fight Against Aids," (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux), also had reservations about sexual abstinence campaigns, but did admit the importance of changing sexual behavior.
In trying to find the causes of the high degree of infections in Africa, researchers found that a relatively high proportion of African men and women had simultaneous sexual relations with two or three partners. Compared to serial monogamy more common in Western countries, the concurrent relationships greatly increase the risk of a rapid diffusion of sexual diseases.
Epstein was highly critical of the AIDS campaigns run by Western groups. Organizations such as Population Services International, Family Health International and Marie Stopes International were first active in population control efforts, she noted. In more recent years their activity in campaigns promoting condom use resulted in publicity that in effect promoted sexual activity, and in some cases "bordered on the misogynistic," Epstein added. The message was that casual sex was nothing to worry about, so long as you used a condom. Apart from promoting behavior that only fueled infections, Epstein also commented that often the campaigns clashed with local sensibilities concerning decency and self-respect.
Epstein also criticized the organizations and the United Nations for playing down the role of infidelity in the spread of HIV/AIDS. She recounted her experience at an international AIDS conference in Bangkok, where researchers presenting evidence about the importance of fidelity in preventing infection were "practically booed off the stage."
Another book published last year, "The AIDS Pandemic: The Collision of Epidemiology With Political Correctness" (Radcliffe Publishing), also pointed out the need to change sexual behavior, instead of a wholesale reliance on condoms.
The positive contribution that religion can make in changing sexual behavior was recognized in a RAND Corporation study published last year. People who are HIV-positive and say religion is an important part of their lives are likely to have fewer sexual partners and are less likely to spread the virus, according to the study: "Religiosity, Denominational Affiliation and Sexual Behaviors Among People with HIV in the U.S."
"Religiosity is an untapped resource in the whole struggle against HIV and AIDS, and should be looked at more thoroughly," commented Frank Galvan, lead author of the study in the April 3 press release accompanying the report.
Christianity and sexuality
Authentic Christianity does not teach that sex is bad. On the contrary, sex is so awesome and sacred that it deserves special attention and consideration.
The Church's view about condoms does not base itself on to what extent it may help resolve health problems. Sexuality, explains No. 2332 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, affects all of the human person, body and soul. It's not some sort of sport or passtime. It concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and procreate, and forming communion with others. It is a very deep experience.e
Sexuality is truly human and personal when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, a relationship that is a complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman, the Catechism observes (No. 2337).
Benedict XVI addressed the HIV/AIDS issue in a couple of recent speeches made when receiving the credentials of new ambassadors. On Dec. 13, in his address to Peter Hitjitevi Katjavivi from Namibia, the Pope recognized the urgent need to halt the spread of infections.
"I assure the people of your country that the Church will continue to assist those who suffer from AIDS and to support their families," the Pope stated.
The Church's contribution to the goal of eradicating AIDS, the Pontiff continued, "cannot but draw its inspiration from the Christian conception of human love and sexuality." This vision sees marriage as a total, reciprocal and exclusive communion of love between a man and a woman, Benedict XVI explained.
The same day, in a speech to Elizabeth Ya Eli Harding, Gambia's new ambassador to the Holy See, the Pope stated that while medicine and education have a part to play in combating HIV/AIDS: "Promiscuous sexual conduct is a root cause of many moral and physical ills and must be overcome by promoting a culture of marital faithfulness and moral integrity."
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
David Suzuki: Environmental Dictator
From LifeSiteNews.com
By John Jalsevac
MONTREAL, Quebec, February 11, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - There are very few Canadians who would not immediately recognize the face of David Suzuki, Canada's environmentalist extraordinaire.
In Canada the name of Suzuki is almost synonymous with environmentalism, with his fame and reputation having been solidified by years of successful lecturing, activism, and internationally syndicated television programs, including the famous The Nature of Things. He is often described with the words "prophet" or "guru," and is widely hailed for his "wisdom." Besides having been awarded the highest award possible for a Canadian citizen - the Order of Canada - Suzuki has been the recipient of twenty-two honorary degrees.
Hence, when Suzuki speaks, Canada listens. And a week and a half ago Canada listened as the sixty-one year old scientist and activist called, again, for the imprisonment of politicians who deny climate change.
Suzuki made the remarks during a speech at McGill University.
"What I would challenge you to do," said Suzuki to the gathered students, during the section of his speech dealing with climate change, and those who deny its existence, "is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there's a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they're doing is a criminal act."
"It's an intergenerational crime in the face of all the knowledge and science from over 20 years."
The packed room of 600 listeners burst into applause. Some attendees at the speech reported that the line about throwing politicians in jail was the biggest applause-line of the night, almost bringing the crowd to its feet.
Subsequent to the speech, however, Suzuki's spokesman, Dan Maceluch, attempted to downplay Suzuki's remarks, saying that they were not meant to be taken literally."He's not advocating locking people up, but he is pulling his hair out," said Maceluch.
This is not, however, the first time that Suzuki has called for the imprisonment of those who don't buy into the climate change hype. While Suzuki's high-profile McGill speech has received the widest amount of media coverage, last month, in a University of Toronto speech, Suzuki made similar remarks. "[Governments] should go to jail for what they're not dong right now," said Suzuki on the occasion. "What our government is not doing, is a criminal act."
Despite Suzuki's spokesman's attempts to dissuade the environmentalist's listeners from a literal interpretation of his words, those who attended the speech have said that Suzuki did not seem to be joking, or even speaking hyperbolically."He sounded serious," said McGill Tribune news editor Vincci Tsui, as reported by the National Post. "I think he wanted to send home the message that this is very crucial issue.
Suzuki is well known to pro-life and pro-family advocates in Canada for his recurrent emphasis on so-called "sustainable development" and his ongoing preaching of the idea of over-population.
In Suzuki's world-view, human beings are nothing more than another species of animal - and indeed, in his own words, a "cancerous" animal - that has developed a superiority complex, leading humans to believe that they hold a privileged place in the cosmos.
Conservative commentators have reacted strongly to Suzuki's remarks as being further evidence of the ongoing whittling away of human rights in Canada, where those who disagree with the establishment, particularly those on the political and social right, are being increasingly persecuted.
As journalist Terry O'Neill wrote in an article published on Feb. 7 in the National Post, "We should also not be surprised at the intolerance that permeates Suzuki's 'lock 'em up' rhetoric. After all, despite the multicultural mantra that we 'celebrate our differences,' there's a disturbingly illiberal tendency these days (as shown in the recent 'human-rights' prosecutions of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, for example) to censor those with whom one doesn't agree. It's only a very small step to try to throw such disagreeable persons into prison, too." See related
LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
David Suzuki's gloomy world of nothingness
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/1999/dec/991215a.html
Environmentalist Guru Suzuki Denounces Stephen Harper at Campaign Stop
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07030110.html
By John Jalsevac
MONTREAL, Quebec, February 11, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - There are very few Canadians who would not immediately recognize the face of David Suzuki, Canada's environmentalist extraordinaire.
In Canada the name of Suzuki is almost synonymous with environmentalism, with his fame and reputation having been solidified by years of successful lecturing, activism, and internationally syndicated television programs, including the famous The Nature of Things. He is often described with the words "prophet" or "guru," and is widely hailed for his "wisdom." Besides having been awarded the highest award possible for a Canadian citizen - the Order of Canada - Suzuki has been the recipient of twenty-two honorary degrees.
Hence, when Suzuki speaks, Canada listens. And a week and a half ago Canada listened as the sixty-one year old scientist and activist called, again, for the imprisonment of politicians who deny climate change.
Suzuki made the remarks during a speech at McGill University.
"What I would challenge you to do," said Suzuki to the gathered students, during the section of his speech dealing with climate change, and those who deny its existence, "is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there's a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they're doing is a criminal act."
"It's an intergenerational crime in the face of all the knowledge and science from over 20 years."
The packed room of 600 listeners burst into applause. Some attendees at the speech reported that the line about throwing politicians in jail was the biggest applause-line of the night, almost bringing the crowd to its feet.
Subsequent to the speech, however, Suzuki's spokesman, Dan Maceluch, attempted to downplay Suzuki's remarks, saying that they were not meant to be taken literally."He's not advocating locking people up, but he is pulling his hair out," said Maceluch.
This is not, however, the first time that Suzuki has called for the imprisonment of those who don't buy into the climate change hype. While Suzuki's high-profile McGill speech has received the widest amount of media coverage, last month, in a University of Toronto speech, Suzuki made similar remarks. "[Governments] should go to jail for what they're not dong right now," said Suzuki on the occasion. "What our government is not doing, is a criminal act."
Despite Suzuki's spokesman's attempts to dissuade the environmentalist's listeners from a literal interpretation of his words, those who attended the speech have said that Suzuki did not seem to be joking, or even speaking hyperbolically."He sounded serious," said McGill Tribune news editor Vincci Tsui, as reported by the National Post. "I think he wanted to send home the message that this is very crucial issue.
Suzuki is well known to pro-life and pro-family advocates in Canada for his recurrent emphasis on so-called "sustainable development" and his ongoing preaching of the idea of over-population.
In Suzuki's world-view, human beings are nothing more than another species of animal - and indeed, in his own words, a "cancerous" animal - that has developed a superiority complex, leading humans to believe that they hold a privileged place in the cosmos.
Conservative commentators have reacted strongly to Suzuki's remarks as being further evidence of the ongoing whittling away of human rights in Canada, where those who disagree with the establishment, particularly those on the political and social right, are being increasingly persecuted.
As journalist Terry O'Neill wrote in an article published on Feb. 7 in the National Post, "We should also not be surprised at the intolerance that permeates Suzuki's 'lock 'em up' rhetoric. After all, despite the multicultural mantra that we 'celebrate our differences,' there's a disturbingly illiberal tendency these days (as shown in the recent 'human-rights' prosecutions of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, for example) to censor those with whom one doesn't agree. It's only a very small step to try to throw such disagreeable persons into prison, too." See related
LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
David Suzuki's gloomy world of nothingness
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/1999/dec/991215a.html
Environmentalist Guru Suzuki Denounces Stephen Harper at Campaign Stop
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07030110.html
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Call for Action - Save Lauren Richardson!
Another innocent person is on the verge of being starved to death: a young American woman named Lauren Richardson.
Read the story here.
Please do something. At a minimum, you can pray.
Read the story here.
Please do something. At a minimum, you can pray.
Canadian hospital planning to starve a man to death
A man is on the verge of being put to death by starvation in a Winnipeg hospital. Sounds like something out of a horror movie. Read below and take action before it's too late.
It's not often that an opportunity arises where we can contribute to the saving of a life. This is one such opportunity.
Samuel Golubchuk is an elderly resident of Winnipeg. Four years ago he became disabled after a fall. He became confined to a wheelchair and had difficulty communicating. Despite these impairments, Sam he led an active life under the loving care of his devoted family, friends, and the staff of the home where he lived.
In October 2007, Sam contracted pneumonia. He was brought to Winnipeg's Grace Hospital where, with treatment, he overcame his illness. Due to his weakened condition, however, Sam has not been able to return to his home and has remained in hospital where he is being fed through a tube and breathing with the on-again, off-again help of a respirator.
In November doctors decided that they should not have to continue providing Sam with basic medical care, citing his age and his diminished capacity as their reasons. They decided that his life was not worth living and they could unilaterally kill him by stopping all feeding.
Naturally, Sam's children refused to give their consent. However, the doctors opted to ignore the wishes of Sam's family. On November 30, the family sought and obtained a temporary Court Order prohibiting the hospital from killing Sam. The hospital is now fighting to have this Order overturned.
Sam's family is accumulating potentially ruinous legal fees defending their father's right to live. They need your help, not just to save Sam's life, but to help save the lives of so many other elderly or disabled who will be endangered by the legal precedent that could be established in this case. Please take a minute and visit Sam's website where you will find easy instructions on specific things that you can do to have an impact. The website is www.samuelgolubchuk.com.
It's not often that an opportunity arises where we can contribute to the saving of a life. This is one such opportunity.
Samuel Golubchuk is an elderly resident of Winnipeg. Four years ago he became disabled after a fall. He became confined to a wheelchair and had difficulty communicating. Despite these impairments, Sam he led an active life under the loving care of his devoted family, friends, and the staff of the home where he lived.
In October 2007, Sam contracted pneumonia. He was brought to Winnipeg's Grace Hospital where, with treatment, he overcame his illness. Due to his weakened condition, however, Sam has not been able to return to his home and has remained in hospital where he is being fed through a tube and breathing with the on-again, off-again help of a respirator.
In November doctors decided that they should not have to continue providing Sam with basic medical care, citing his age and his diminished capacity as their reasons. They decided that his life was not worth living and they could unilaterally kill him by stopping all feeding.
Naturally, Sam's children refused to give their consent. However, the doctors opted to ignore the wishes of Sam's family. On November 30, the family sought and obtained a temporary Court Order prohibiting the hospital from killing Sam. The hospital is now fighting to have this Order overturned.
Sam's family is accumulating potentially ruinous legal fees defending their father's right to live. They need your help, not just to save Sam's life, but to help save the lives of so many other elderly or disabled who will be endangered by the legal precedent that could be established in this case. Please take a minute and visit Sam's website where you will find easy instructions on specific things that you can do to have an impact. The website is www.samuelgolubchuk.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
