Thursday, September 7, 2017

Justin Trudeau's feminist approach is not Canada's

Remember that 650 million Canada will be spending for abortion in Africa? Well here's something that we've grown to expect of Justin Trudeau's government: it's the arrogance in the way he thinks he speaks for all Canadians. Which he doesn't.

I did an ATIP to Global Affairs Canada looking for information on this funding which, by the way, comes from Canadian taxpayers and not the government. In the backgrounder on this abortion funding, under "Key messages" that was sent out to stakeholders it says:
"Canada is a firm supporter of a feminist approach, which includes a commitment to gender equality, the empowerment of women and girls, and the protection of their human rights."
And this:
"Minister Bibeau's mandate letter has been clear from the beginning. As part of Canada's feminist approach, we are committed to supporting access to the full range of sexual and reproductive health service and information. that includes access to contraception, family planning, comprehensive education as well as women's right [to] choose safe abortion, where legal, and access to post-abortion care." Emphasis added.
This "feminist approach" really just means Justin Trudeau and Minister Bibeau's abortion approach. Canada is made up of people. 36,591,241 people to be exact. And according to a recent Ipsos poll:
"One in Four (24%) [Canadians] Want Some Limits on Abortion, While 12% Say It Should Not Be Permitted [and]...A further one in ten Canadians (11%) aren’t sure [where they stand on abortion]"
That's almost half the country who are most likely not a firm supporter of a feminist approach. When I think of "Canada" I don't think of Justin Trudeau and his partisan politicians. I think of Canada's people. Trudeau et al are not "Canada". They do not speak for me. And they don't speak for millions like me. To presume that they do, is the height of arrogance.

The ATIP also included a "tracking chart (donor commitments and media attention)." There were 28 outside sources listed. Of those sources there was only one pro-life  source identified: Life Site News. Talk about stacking the deck.

Did Trudeau and Bibeau bother to consult with pro-life organizations? I know--a foolish question.

I have some additional information to wade through and will report later if I find anything.

The freedom to hear what people have to say

Excellent article by Andrew Potter on free speech that tells us that the real importance of free speech is not so much the freedom to speak (though that is important), but the freedom to hear what others say:
"...We got here because the problem is with the way we framed the question, as a debate over the benefits of free speech and the consequences we are willing to tolerate. Instead, what we should be focused on is the right of people to hear what others have to say, and how this fits into a broader account of individual freedom.
What’s the difference? If you turn the free speech debate on its head and treat it as a right to hear what someone has to say, the constitutional rationale for it becomes a lot clearer: The right to hear or read something and judge its worth or merit for yourself is the basis for being treated as an equal, rational and autonomous agent. We shield things from children precisely because we don’t think their rational faculties are sufficiently well developed. They don’t know how to evaluate something by their own lights. That’s why a big part of parenting is bringing kids along the path to autonomy, teaching them to judge and think for themselves.
Hearing what people have to say and judging its merits for yourself is the mark of being an adult. And part of being an adult is having the right to make mistakes, to make bad judgments or decisions, and take responsibility for what follows. 
It just so happens that a society made up of autonomous individuals making independent rational judgments about what others have to say is the basic condition for the possibility of a liberal democracy. The fact that so many people, on the right and the left, are willing to have their right to hear limited by governments, universities or even social media mobs, is a further sign of the relentless infantilization of our culture — and goes a long way toward explaining the current crisis of liberalism."
This was the core issue with our charter challenge. Our pro-abortion government under Kathleen Wynne, didn't want pro-life people like myself to discuss anything related to abortion in Ontario. Like numbers of abortions, policies about abortion, etc.

They wanted to shut us down and changing the law seemed like a genius and simple way to do it. Their logic--though they would never admit to this--was that if we don't have the information then we can't talk about it. So they made up specious reasons about safety which were ultimately shot down by the facts and actual logic.

In the end their tactics were neither genius nor simple.

Saturday, August 19, 2017

Mayor Jim Watson - Pro-life discrimination

Dear Jim Watson,

I understand you are proud to kick off the pride festival next week. And that you will be flying the pride flag at city hall.

Can you please explain to me why the pride flag will be flown, but the pro-life flag could not be flown?

There is quite a double standard here. I am sure you can see that.

One group advocates for equality for LGBQT people and their flag is flown. Another group who advocates for equality for all human beings and their flag isn't flown.

It seems that one group is more equal than the other.

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Thanks

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Friday, July 28, 2017

Politicians listen to Joyce Arthur rather than reason

"...Most places in the world have some sort of “fetal homicide law” to fill in this gap.  They recognize the danger it poses to women and the importance of legislation to account for such crimes. 
Laws can be carefully written to consider abortion rights, and designed to only be implemented when such “non-consensual abortions” occur. 
But the advocacy group Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada have fought against any such proposal, arguing they are all attempts to weaken women’s right to an abortion. 
When asked by a reporter from the CBC, Joyce Arthur, president of the organization, said she has no problem with how the Criminal Code is applied to those who are charged in the killing of a baby if an attack on a pregnant woman leads to the baby’s death after it has emerged from the womb. 
“I think the law is fair in that sense,” she said. 
There was no comment in regard to the “sense” that isn’t fair. 
Isn’t it up to the Feds, not the ARCC? 
Political liability is something every elected official has to consider. When a pregnant woman is murdered the national news outlets look to Joyce Arthur and the ARCC for the final word. It is not hard to see her influence.  Canadian politicians are acutely aware of it. 
Any effort to address this legal gap is easily spun in the media into, as she puts it, “a backdoor attempt to smuggle in fetal personhood and make it a building block towards recriminalization of abortion.” 
Because of this, certain political groups have become inclined to avoid the subject all together, and in turn, this bizarre circumstance of law that rewards greater brutality in assaulting pregnant women is allowed to continue to be a uniquely Canadian reality..."
What a sorry bunch of cowardly politicians we have here in Canada. They can't think for themselves when it comes to the human fetus. And if they can think for themselves, they hide it pretty well. As soon as Joyce Arthur speaks out against anything to do with the rights of pre-born children--even wanted pre-born children--politicians cower like a dog in a thunderstorm. Sorry. I didn't mean to insult dogs.