KW Right to Life Marks Tragic Anniversary

On January 28th approximately 100 people joined KW Right to Life to mark the anniversary of the Morgentaler decision that struck down Canada’s abortion laws and created the legal vacuum where preborn children have no legal protection in this country until the time of their birth.

The format was much different than in years past when we would hold an hour long silent vigil in front of Grand River hospital. This year we moved a few blocks south in front of Kitchener city hall, where the outdoor skating rink and the lights of downtown provided a fun and energetic atmosphere.

After a half hour we walked to St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church where we were graciously hosted. There we had a half hour of prayer and reflection.

The highlight for me this year was in the reflection delivered by Harold Albrecht, Conservative MP for Kitchener Conestoga. In a heartfelt address, Harold explained how his personal experiences have led him to place a high value on life at every stage from conception to natural death. They were powerful examples:

• He spoke of a grandson who was born extremely prematurely. The baby did not survive but the impact of the loss on the parents and extended family left little doubt that this was more than just product of conception. This little one was a very real person who remains missed.

• He spoke of the disabled, particularly children, youth and adults with Down ’s syndrome mentioning that they are often so joyful and unconditionally friendly. These special people have enriched the lives of their families and community, -- it would be a shame to end their lives prematurely – and miss out on the special joy they bring to our world simply because we have the technology to screen in utero.

• He spoke of visiting the elderly in nursing homes and hearing their stories of pain and loneliness. He said that’s why we must focus on providing quality comfort measures, palliative care and emotional support for the elderly rather than open the door to euthanasia.

• Finally he spoke of the mentally ill and the depressed, of a colleague who committed suicide and of how he was personally shaken by the news of Nadia Kajouji. Nadia was an 18 year old university student who committed suicide in March 2008. During the investigation into Kajouji's death, police discovered that a 47-year-old male nurse from Minnesota — who was posing as a 28-year-old woman online — might have encouraged Kajouji via an internet chat room to commit suicide. No charges have been laid in the case under Canadian law.

Harold explained that Section 241 of the Canadian Criminal Code says "everyone who … counsels a person to commit suicide, or aids or abets a person to commit suicide, whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years." His concern though is that it is not clear whether encouraging someone to commit suicide via the internet is a crime.

On November 18, the House of Commons voted unanimously in favour of a motion (M388) Harold put forward calling for change in how the Criminal Code deals with people who counsel others over the internet to commit suicide. He is hopeful that the measure will prevent another case similar to Nadia’s.

Harold thanked everyone present for the work they have done to protect life, and noted that our most important task is to change the hearts and minds of our friends and neighbours. He noted that in his experience even a simple example of sharing an image of a preborn child can start a conversation that will help convince people of the humanity of preborn children and know that they need our protection.

After hearing Harold’s message, many of us left with a renewed sense of purpose.

A Gay 'Rights' Trifecta

"It makes no sense that Mr. Lusk could be acquitted in a Quebec court and then found liable for moral and punitive damages in front of a human rights tribunal," Mr. Angers said. "These tribunals are just in another world."

That's a pretty good summary of the situation after the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal fined a man $12,000 for saying a bad word:

The case against Mr. Lusk, a retired lieutenant colonel of the Canadian Forces, stems from an April 2004, incident in which Mr. Thibault is alleged to have driven recklessly down their street in the Montreal suburb of Pointe Claire while neighbourhood children, including Mr. Lusk's son, were playing road hockey.

A witness testified that Mr. Thibault had run a stop sign and driven at high speed toward one of the kids, nearly hitting the child. . . When Mr. Lusk heard about the latest encounter with Mr. Thibault, he decided to take the matter up with his neighbours.

Messrs. Thibault and Wouters allege Mr. Lusk showed up at their home yelling and hitting their metal gate, an accusation Mr. Lusk steadfastly denies. The couple said Mr. Lusk accused Mr. Wouters, who had not been in the car, of driving dangerously and endangering the lives of his children, calling him a "f---ing faggot." . . .

Police also charged him with assault and uttering death threats, but he was later acquitted.

Still, the Human Rights Tribunal, using surveillance footage of the encounter captured by cameras Messrs. Thibault and Wouters had installed on their home, ruled "by a preponderance of evidence, that the defendant, by his behaviour, his comments and his attitude, has violated the rights of the plaintiffs, on the basis of their sexual orientation."

I really don't know where to start. This is a grave injustice. First it was a matter between neighbours. It's pretty common for neighbours to have disagreements, and it is a father's responsibility to protect his children. I can't imagine the police treating this type of complaint seriously under any other circumstances.

Second Mr Lusk was acquitted of all charges related to the incident. We have a constitutional right not to be tried twice for the same crime so the Human Rights tribunal seems to be tramping all over Mr Lusk's rights.

Finally, I came across the story via a comment on my last post about the disturbing pace our rights are being eroded in the name of 'human rights.' That post referenced a court ruling that marriage commissioners cannot op out of performing marriage ceremonies for same sex couples and the silly censorship of the 1980s hit song Money for Nothing. That makes 3 decisions in one week that tramped on the rights of individuals in favour of the gay lobby.

I suppose now is the time for a disclaimer. I have nothing against gays individually or as a community, but when our basic rights are trampled on to appease a vocal minority we must stand up to protect them.

Stop the Madness Now!

First things first: Faggot, Faggot, Faggot. Take that you silly censors!

The ridiculous ruling by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council to ban the original version of Dire Strait's hit song 'Money for Nothing' is part of a very disturbing trend this week. It follows a decision earlier this week by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal that concluded marriage commissioners have no right to refuse to marry same sex couples.

In neither case are the rights of homosexuals harmed or challenged, but in both cases the rights of others are seriously threatened. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Conscience are fundamental to democracy, both have been harmed this week.

Fortunately, many Canadians are willing to stand up to the censorship decision. Q104 Halifax and K97 Edmonton are both publicly defying the ruling by playing the song, in their report, the Toronto Sun helpfully published contact information to complain to the CBSC. Anyone can contact the CBSC national chair Ronald Cohen at ron.cohen@cbsc.ca or 1 (866) 696-4718. I definitely plan on doing that, but I wish it were as easy to fight the Saskatchewan decision on conscience rights, because I think that's more serious.

In the meantime here's the unedited version of the song



and the offending lyrics:

See the little faggot with the earring and the makeup
Yeah buddy that's his own hair
That little faggot got his own jet airplane
That little faggot he's a millionaire

Say it ain't so.

Canada's Redneck Games are no more. The Wellington Advertiser reported this weekend:

After five years and numerous top 100 festival awards, the Minto Redneck Games will no longer be there to “Get It Done.”

Last week, council made the decision to cancel the games, following a loss of roughly $8,500 on the event’s Saturday night concert.

Although Economic Development Committee manager Belinda Wick-Graham was welcomed to the table, it was with a heavy heart she presented her report on the status of the games and the results of the meeting held with the Redneck Games committee.

“My report basically sums everything up,” Wick-Graham said. “I have mixed feelings about this.” She explained there were multiple meetings with the core committee, made up of 14 different community groups involved with the event, to try to come up with a decision.

There was not a solid consensus and if a few additional people had been at the meeting, Wick-Graham said it may have swayed the vote in a different direction. . .

The recommendation made to council was to discontinue the event.

“If at some time in the future, if there is an urge to regenerate it, that can happen.”

With regret, council approved the recommendation of the Redneck committee that the event be discontinued.

It's sad news no doubt. I never attended the games, but I always got a kick out of the pictures that would make it into the local paper. It looked like serious fun.

The brutal truth is despite the fact that I always though the event looked fun and Harriston is less than an hour away, I never went. The event was cancelled because there wasn't enough attendance or volunteer leadership. This is a reminder that if we want community events, we really should lend our support.

Americans - Why are you SO cynical?

I just recently returned from Ireland a week ago Sunday. I was scheduled to return on Saturday but my flight was cancelled. I was scheduled to fly with Delta Airlines from Dublin to New York JFK to Toronto Pearson. I only have a few complaints relating to the inconveniences of numerous line ups, getting a hotel room and then being denied boarding on the next day's flight. The really bizarre part of the whole ordeal was the reaction of the other passengers.

It started as one of the airline personnel went up and down the line explaining the situation. Apparently there is only one flight per day and the flight crew wasn't trained to operate the plane that landed. I listened and moved on to asking questions about the next flight, our hotel room and other practical questions. The other passengers seemingly without exception insisted on pushing their various conspiracy theories. They were convinced that the airline was hiding something and believed that there had to be another reason that the flight was cancelled.

In various line ups I tried my best to explain my logic. I said the airline had no incentive to lie to us, stupid mistakes happen, and I was quite certain the airline wouldn't voluntarily take on all the extra expenses associated with cancelling a flight. But my efforts were fruitless - it didn't matter who I talked to, the other passengers remained convinced we were being lied to.

To my American readers, can you please offer any insight as to why your compatriots would find it so hard to trust in such a simple straight forward situation?