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.



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.

Monday, July 24, 2017

Trudeau really means sameness when he speaks of diversity

July 22, 2017

By former MP Ken Epp

I woke up very early this morning, and started thinking about a bunch of different things. Of course, I was thinking of the “Unity” vote today, ...and the history that led us to this place. The media has been abuzz regarding the “bad” influence that the “so-cons” have. That led me to this thought: The “diversity” cool-aid that Justin Trudeau and his colleagues, the leftist politicians and media want us to drink is the largest concoction of hypocrisy that could be invented. Trudeau’s favorite phrase is, “We are not strong in spite of our diversity; we are strong because of our diversity.” This is hogwash. Trudeau doesn’t believe this, nor do all the others espousing this idea. It is clear to me that it is not diversity they are seeking – it is SAMENESS! They want us all to be like them. They want us all to accept, unquestioningly, their wrong-headed, anything-goes life philosophy and belief that they espouse. Any dissenting thought is roundly castigated and punished. That is NOT diversity!

Here are two obvious examples:

In the last election campaign, Trudeau declared that no-one that disagreed with his view on abortion would be permitted to run as a candidate for the Liberal Party. Hey! Some people think it is okay to “terminate a pregnancy” (such polite, impersonal terminology.) Others believe, as I do, that it is the termination of the life of a living human being. There is overwhelming scientific and other evidence for this point of view. But is this diversity in belief tolerated and encouraged? No. Everybody in Canada is forced to believe exactly as they do, even being compelled on threat of jail time, to fund this deliberate killing with our tax dollars. No diversity here! They are calling for universal conformity.

The next example is in the belief regarding marriage. There are some who believe that you can “love” and hence be married to a person of the same gender, more than one person at a time, or some other combination. Others, including me, have a deeply held belief that marriage can only be the “Union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.” It is a holy union, founded in antiquity, and upheld through the ages until recently. Am I permitted to have this now diverse opinion? No! I am being forced to comply with their beliefs. If I fail to do so, I am the object of much derision, name-calling, and even punishment. If I express my beliefs, a firmly held conviction based on history and my belief in the Scriptures, I am ridiculed out of the debate, drawn into a human rights tribunal, fined, and/or imprisoned. I am labeled a “bigot” and a “homophobe.” Where does that come from? By the way, “homophobia” is a misnomer. “Homo” means “same.” A “phobia” is an irrational fear. Neither apply. Who is the same as me? A heterosexual human male. I do not fear such a person. And if you use the new definition which really is “homosexual” I don’t fear them either. I don’t have either a rational or irrational fear of them. (If I did, why did I actively try to befriend two of my parliamentary colleagues who were self-declared homosexuals?) Where is the diversity? I thought that this diversity was to give us strength. (LOL)

So, friends, I think we should wake up and recognize the “diversity maxim” for what it is. It’s a huge diversion from freedom of speech and thought, freedom of religious belief, and freedom from harassment. It does not have as its goal to unite us, but rather to divide us.

Rick Warren sums it up perfectly in his statement: “Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.”

Oh how I wish that we could have political leaders who would forget about trying to appease the “other side.” Instead, what we need are leaders who will champion our right to respectful dissenting thought and expression. We are confusing “tolerance” with “celebration.” I tolerate and love my friend who is a hopeless alcoholic, but I feel no compulsion to celebrate his lifestyle. I have many friends who do not attend the church I attend, but they totally tolerate me. It is not necessary to celebrate with me to live in harmony with me. Similarly, I should have the right, respectfully to not march in a homosexual parade. Why should I be forced to celebrate that in which I do not believe? Similarly, there should be total freedom of choice in the matter of our political leaders as to whether they march in a “Gay parade.” Some will; some won’t. Why should we shower them with hateful epithets if they choose not to?

Diversity. As currently presented, it’s a harmful myth.

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Thursday, July 6, 2017

If we were pride parade people we would get respect from mayor Watson

By Patricia Maloney

Now we have police chief Charles Bordeleau and Jim Watson talking about the upcoming gay pride parade in August. The radio stations were all over this "story" this morning. Meanwhile Jim Watson still hasn't the time of day for pro-life people, and he is still refusing to answer my questions about why our March for Life was diverted.

If I were writing to Watson and Bordeleau about their participation at the gay pride parade I bet you dollar to donuts I would get an answer. And it would be written in glowing terms about the parade blah blah blah.

But if you're pro-life, well then we don't want to hear from you. In fact this person had a telling conversation with Jim Watson on his disdain fro pro-life people.

The writer said:
"I first asked Mayor Watson why the police were allowed to divert our March so that we were not allowed to proceed along our pre-approved route past the Human Rights monument, and why the police gave into the demands of the few pro-abortion protesters (maybe about 100) who wanted to block us. There were about 100 police officers there, so it was a mystery to me why they forced us to take another route. Why did the counter protesters have a right to disrupt our peaceful March, and for the second year in a row no less?  
Mr. Watson's reply was that that was not City Hall's responsibility. The City is not responsible for how the police do their job; the City just funds the police force, that's all. He told me that any complaints should be made to the Police Services Board."
Well I did ask chief Bordeleau about this, and his response was: "I can't speak to your question about a response from the Mayor or your Councillor. What I can tell you with respect to the demonstration is that the Ottawa Police Service is present during demonstrations to ensure the safety and security of all participants and observers. Although routes are pre-approved, officers on the ground may be required to make decisions to deviate from a planned route for a number of reasons including for reasons associated with public safety. Demonstrations are dynamic in nature and officers must make decisions on site which were required that day." 

I wonder if we protested the gay pride parade would Chief Bordeleau divert that for us? I know I know, that was an outrageous thought.

The person who tried to engage Watson then said this:
"I also asked him why the legislation was needed at all, since if someone was assaulted/spat on, etc (as media reports have claimed), then shouldn't the police be laying charges based on existing laws? Why is a bubble zone needed? To which he responded, we can't have police there 24/7."
Of course "we can't have police 24/7". What a stupid answer. That's why we have something called "call 911". That will get the police to respond to harassment, assault, etc. The rest of us use it. Why should an abortion clinic get special treatment not afforded to any other member of society? What about pro-life people who are harassed by pro-choice people? Why can't we get a bubble zone around us to protect us from pro-choice violence?

Then the person said this:
"And finally, I brought up the issue of the pro-life flag at City Hall being taken down after complaints by some city councilors, and I expressed my concern about an interview he had given to Global News where he said pro-life campaigns are "divisive" and have no place at City Hall...I reminded him that he allowed an LGBTQ flag to fly, and I asked, shouldn't pro-lifers be treated equally and be allowed to have their flag flown as well? Isn't that only fair? Why the double standard? His response hit the nail on the head for me as to why he feels it is fine to discriminate against us. He said (paraphrasing): "The LGBTQ community promotes human rights. You want to take away women's rights." So that was it. Plain and simple."
We want to take away women's rights? Obviously Watson hasn't a clue as to what being pro-life means. We support human rights for all people. Young people. Old people. Women people. Men people. Sick people. Pre-born people. Old and dying people. ALL PEOPLE. It's not a difficult concept.

Of course when Watson says "women's rights" what he really means, is the fabricated "right" for a woman to have an abortion. That is not a right. It's a made up construct that means nothing. Women have equality rights, charter rights, freedom of conscience rights, freedom of expression rights, freedom of religion rights. Just like every other human being. And yes we support those rights. We just don't support a woman's right to kill her pre-born child.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world" 
Human rights belong to one person. They don't extend from one person to have dominion over another person.  Women's rights are the same as everyone else's rights. They don't get special rights. Even if people like Watson say they do, they don't.

Finally the person conversing with Watson said this:
"I couldn't just stand there and ignore such an accusation, so I started to say that that is not what we want to do at all, but I couldn't go any further because then he cut me off and said, "I'm not here to debate this issue; I'm here for a Strawberry Social," and he started turning to walk away. I remained calm and respectful the entire time, and in a last ditch effort, I politely asked him (even though I figured it was probably hopeless): "Would you be willing to meet with me sometime to discuss further." To which he curtly replied, "No, I'm not going to discuss this with you anymore; I've already given you ten minutes of my time" and he walked away. "Thank you for your time, Sir," I replied. (And I think it was actually only about 5 minutes of his time, not 10.)"
Because Jim Watson has no respect for us and what we stand for, and even though he is also our mayor and has control over how our taxes are spent, he doesn't have the common courtesy to respond to, and discuss with us, valid questions regarding our rights.

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Jim Watson - more on how pro-lifers are treated

I received this letter from a reader of my blog about her meeting with Mayor Jim Watson at a recent Strawberry social. I will comment on some of Watson's statements later. Previous posts on this topic.

This past Saturday, I attended a Strawberry Social put on by a local community association in Nepean. Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson gave a short speech, and then mingled with the crowd. 

I took the opportunity to speak to him and told him I was pro-life and that I was concerned about how Ottawa City Hall had treated pro-lifers on the day of the National March for Life back in May. (It's always good to take these opportunities to speak with politicians in person about things happening in your community that concern you, because it's often difficult to get direct answers to questions you send them via email. And besides, you can never be certain that office staff who handle your incoming emails will inform your elected representative of your concerns in the first place.)

I first asked Mayor Watson why the police were allowed to divert our March so that we were not allowed to proceed along our pre-approved route past the Human Rights monument, and why the police gave into the demands of the few pro-abortion protesters (maybe about 100) who wanted to block us. There were about 100 police officers there, so it was a mystery to me why they forced us to take another route. Why did the counter protesters have a right to disrupt our peaceful March, and for the second year in a row no less? 

Mr. Watson's reply was that that was not City Hall's responsibility. The City is not responsible for how the police do their job; the City just funds the police force, that's all. He told me that any complaints should be made to the Police Services Board. 

Then I asked him about his expressed support for  "bubble zone" legislation around abortion clinics in Ontario, specifically around the Morgentaler abortion clinic in Ottawa. He said the "bubble zone" would just prevent people from protesting right in front of the abortion clinic on the same side of the street. He said we could still protest across the street. When I responded that media reports had said the bubble zone would be 500 feet or 500 metres, I couldn't remember which. he said that was untrue and that we would still be able to protest right across the street from the Morgentaler clinic as we do today. Of course, it's provincial legislation that has not come out yet, but that is his understanding. 

I also asked him why the legislation was needed at all, since if someone was assaulted/spat on, etc (as media reports have claimed), then shouldn't the police be laying charges based on existing laws? Why is a bubble zone needed? To which he responded, we can't have police there 24/7. 

And finally, I brought up the issue of the pro-life flag at City Hall being taken down after complaints by some city councilors, and I expressed my concern about an interview he had given to Global News where he said pro-life campaigns are "divisive" and have no place at City Hall ( ). He tried to avoid answering the question at first by diverting the issue away from City Hall and asking me why Parliament Hill wouldn't allow a pro-life flag to fly (which I had no knowledge of.) Getting back to City Hall, I reminded him that he allowed an LGBTQ flag to fly, and I asked, shouldn't pro-lifers be treated equally and be allowed to have their flag flown as well? Isn't that only fair? Why the double standard?

His response hit the nail on the head for me as to why he feels it is fine to discriminate against us. He said (paraphrasing): "The LGBTQ community promotes human rights. You want to take away women's rights." So that was it. Plain and simple.

I couldn't just stand there and ignore such an accusation,so I started to say that that is not what we want to do at all, but I couldn't go any further because then he cut me off and said, "I'm not here to debate this issue; I'm here for a Strawberry Social," and he started turning to walk away. I remained calm and respectful the entire time, and in a last ditch effort, I politely asked him (even though I figured it was probably hopeless): "Would you be willing to meet with me sometime to discuss further." To which he curtly replied, "No, I'm not going to discuss this with you anymore; I've already given you ten minutes of my time" and he walked away. "Thank you for your time, Sir," I replied. (And I think it was actually only about 5 minutes of his time, not 10.)

Monday, June 26, 2017

Stephanie Gray speaks to Google about abortion

Stephanie Gray hits the ball out of the park. Again.

She speaks about abortion to Google employees. Over 41,000 views.

If you are pro-life. Or if you are pro-choice. Please watch it.

Thank you Google.

Mass intention: Protection of Pro-Life Doctors

Where: St. Monica's

Date: Sunday, July 2 at 11 am

Address:  2080 Merivale Rd, Nepean, ON K2C 3H1, Canada

Divisive is okay as long as you are on the right side of the division

By Patricia Maloney

I don't support pride parades. I find it offensive that these parades freely allow/condone nudity, and people simulating sexual acts. This kind of behaviour is not appropriate for many people (myself included), and certainly not suitable for children.

When Jim Watson removed the pro-life flag from city hall he told us that flying the pro-life flag was "divisive":
"That kind of divisive cause should not be promoted and publicized at city hall."
Yes abortion is divisive, and I am against abortion. That's why I am pro-life. Our flag was a manifestation of our free speech rights to say we are against abortion.

But wait a minute.  Pride and their public manifestation (parades) is also divisive. To many people. So why did Jim Watson fly the Pride flag at city hall? Because this clearly is also a "divisive" issue.

Double standard.

Watson also said that our recent March For Life and what we stand for is:
"Not a civilized society."
But simulating sex acts, and full nudity in public is acceptable behaviour?

And what is it exactly that we do on our peaceful March that is so unacceptable? It is that we peacefully and orderly witness to the killing of pre-born children in Canada. No nudity. No simulating of sexual acts. Just peaceful witness. This is our sin. This is our unacceptable behaviour.

Double standard.

Saturday, June 24, 2017

Jim Watson - tell us what you really think

By Patricia Maloney

This is what Mayor Jim Watson thinks about pro-life people. He starts out discussing raising the pro-life flag at city hall and how it is unacceptable and how he and everyone else at city hall supports a "woman's right to choose". At the end of the clip Watson switches to discussing the bubble zone he wants to put around the abortion clinic and tells us what he really thinks of pro-life people:
"In the 21st century it's just not acceptable to have that kind of behaviour in a civilized society."
No wonder the mayor wouldn't respond to my emails. We are not worthy of a response because our behaviour is unacceptable

Monday, June 19, 2017

One Year Later, the reality of Medical Assistance in Dying

By Michael Swan June 9, 2017

Ontario doctors challenge policy forcing referrals for medically assisted dying
College's rules infringe on doctors' right to object on conscientious, religious grounds, groups argue
Amanda Pfeffer · CBC News
June 15, 2017

CBC Ottawa Morning Radio Live:  June 15, 2017 with Hallie Cotnam - Interview with Dr. Sephora Tang and Dr. David Rouselle from the CPSO

Sunday, June 18, 2017

Rex Murphy's excellent advice to Justin Trudeau on his feminist foreign aid policy

Poor Fern Hill. She just couldn't bring herself to watch Rex Murphy discussing Justin Trudeau's feminist foreign aid policy.

I guess Rex just made too much sense.

We still don't know number of late-term abortions in Canada

By Patricia Maloney

Pro-abortion activist Joyce Arthur thinks that only 0.59 percent of all abortions performed in Canada for 2015 are late-term.

There is no way Arthur can know this, since very few late-term abortions are reported to CIHI. All we know for sure is, that based on the 19,039 hospital abortions for which we have a gestational age, there were 587 late-term hospital abortions in Canada in 2015. (an excel spreadsheet will be downloaded to your computer, see Table 4)

I've discussed this a few times before, links here

So let's do it again for 2015.

CIHI reported 100,104 abortions in 2015. Of these 100,104 abortions, the gestational age is only reported for 19,039 of the abortions (7,330 performed on fetuses <=8 weeks, 8,701 on fetuses 9-12 weeks, 1,585 on fetuses 13-16 weeks, 836 on fetuses 17-20 weeks, 587 on fetuses 21+ weeks). Note that these known gestational age abortions are reported only for hospital abortions--we have no gestational ages for abortions done in clinics or physician's offices. And 4,522 of these hospital abortions have an unknown gestational age.

Therefore, there were at least 81,065 (100,104 minus 19,039) abortions performed in 2015 with an unknown gestational age. This means all of those 81,065 abortions, or most of them, or some of them, or none of them, could be late term abortions--we do not know. And we don’t know these gestational ages because most abortion providers don't report the gestational ages of abortions. 

In other words of the 100,104 known abortions we only know gestational ages for 19,039 of them.

If all of the unknown gestational age abortions were in fact late term abortions, then the percentage  of late term abortions could be as high as 81%. But we don't know do we? To say that only .59% of abortions are late-term is unknowable. It is also misleading.

Even if the rate of late-term abortions was linear, then that would mean that there could be 3,103 late-term abortions and not 587 (587 is 3.1% of 19,039, therefore 3.1% of 100,104 is 3,103).

And as Suzanne Fortin wisely noted regarding the possible rarity of late term abortions:
"So what if they're [late-term abortions] rare? They HAPPEN! Murder is rare too. One is too many."

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Ottawa Citizen - Freedom of expression wins

Judge strikes down law that blocks access to information about abortion in Ontario

Published on: June 12, 2017 | Last Updated: June 12, 2017 7:05 PM EDT

An Ontario judge has thrown out a law that prevents the public from knowing how many abortions are being performed in the province, saying it impedes meaningful discussion and criticism about abortion services “which is a matter of public interest.”

The Association for Reformed Political Action, which challenged the law, called the ruling by Justice Marc Labrosse of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice a “huge victory” for freedom of expression.

“This decision strengthens democracy,” said André Schutten, ARPA Canada’s director of law and policy. “The question at the heart of this case was whether governments can avoid accountability on a particular matter simply by excluding information related to that matter from the access to information law. We are very pleased that the court has struck this censorship provision down.”

In his ruling, Labrosse said the law, which excludes information about abortion services from Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy, is too broad and was passed with virtually no debate. He ruled that the section in question is unconstitutional.

The province has 12 months to put remedial legislation in place before the current law becomes invalid.

Labrosse said Ontario relied on concerns of the Ontario Hospital Association that disclosing information about abortions could put the safety and security of patients, hospitals and staff at risk. But the law also excludes general statistical information on abortion, which was once available.

“The evidence in these proceedings leads me to conclude that in order to have a meaningful public debate, the available information to allow for a meaningful public debate certainly needs to go beyond some of the basic statistical information offered by Ontario … the information provided to date is clearly insufficient.”

Schutten said the motivation of his organization — which opposes abortion — was to “make sure we can comment and lobby with accurate numbers. We have never been interested in patient or doctor identifiers or individual names. All we are looking for is statistical general information.”
The ruling could have implications beyond abortion.

Ontario passed similar, although less broad, legislation preventing information from being made public about which health institutions are providing medically assisted death.

Dying with Dignity says such information is crucial to an informed public debate about access to and availability of medically assisted death.

Dying With Dignity Canada CEO Shanaaz Gokool said she sees similarities between the ruling on abortion statistics and her organization’s objection to restrictions on access to information about medical assistance in death.

Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner Brian Beamish argued that banning access to information about where assisted death was being performed “hinders transparency, accountability and meaningful public debate,” and is not based on any evidence of public harm.
Beamish also intervened in the court ruling about records related to abortion services.

Gokool said her organization has asked the ministry whether the ruling on access to abortion information changes anything when it comes to limits on access to information about assisted death.
“The decision seems to say that withholding information from Ontarians about health care services limits the ability to have full public and social policy discussions.

“The province has to take another look at what they have passed. To do otherwise would be problematic.”

ARPA, which opposes assisted death, is also interested in information about the provision of services in the province, said Schutten.

“This is the interesting thing. Our organization has grave concerns about vulnerable people. But in this case we would agree with Dying With Dignity. We want to be able to know how many people are being killed and by what means.

“We can handle the information … and a good, robust debate.”

Monday, June 12, 2017

A doctor speaks out about conscience rights

By An Ontario Doctor

I received a copy of this letter from a doctor. The doctor is writing about health care workers' conscience rights.

To my Member of Provincial Parliament of the Liberal Party,

I am deeply disappointed by the Liberal Party's willful disregard of the conscience rights of health care professionals when they voted in unison to defeat Bill 129 (An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991).

I realize now the utter powerlessness that minority citizens, like myself, have in the face of governments who have differing ideals.  I depended upon my elected member of parliament to speak for me, to be my voice and my vote on the one issue over which I have agonized for the past two years, an issue that has affected not only my freedom in how I practice my craft, but also the well being of countless patients (among whom you and I will be counted one day) who will be affected by the ramifications of this shift in health care policy.  I cannot help but to feel let down by both federal and provincial governments that have decided to play a political game based on faulty arguments which you and I both know are untrue.  For example, the argument of the patient who is so isolated and helpless that they cannot telephone to self-refer for MAID, is a fictitious patient that does not exist - but if on the rare occasion that such a patient actually did exist, then helping them to get on a pathway to be euthanized is perhaps the wrong immediate focus before other supports have been put into place first!

Which is why I don't understand the argument so often used by the Liberal party to discount conscience rights -  that upholding conscience rights would somehow limit access to service.  This argument is false, as has been shown in other jurisdictions that have allowed euthanasia and assisted suicide while still respecting conscience rights.  However, if the belief is that upholding conscience rights does in fact limit access to service, then this stated belief is incoherent with other statements made that conscience rights is already protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Preamble of C-14.  If conscience rights are, as stated, already protected, then what would be the harm of upholding these rights in legislation?  It is precisely because these rights are NOT sufficiently protected in light of the Carter decision that there is a need for explicit legislative protection, and which the Federal Government expected provinces to enact provincially.  Instead, the Ontario government has shirked its responsibility of protecting fundamental freedoms that are being eroded with seemingly no consequence to regulating colleges keen to impose policies that violate human rights due to their own faulty understanding of what it means to respect conscience rights.

Not enacting laws that protect freedom of conscience is analogous to saying, at the Federal level, that because everyone has a Charter Right to Life, there is no need for a law prohibiting murder because a person's right to life is already protected under the Charter.  Charter rights are guiding foundational principles upon which laws are created and by which they must abide.  Nowhere has there been any evidence produced that demonstrates upholding the Charter rights of Freedom of Conscience in Legislation infringes upon another person's right to life (which was the reason why physician-assisted suicide was permitted).  Furthermore, the Care Coordination System which the government has agreed to create (thank you very much) resolves the public fear of potential restrictions to access.  

A Charter of Rights and Freedoms is effective in granting rights only in so far as those words are respected in action, which, on this issue, has not been the case.

It is clear from the Liberal party's stance that it sides with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), which the Canadian Medical Association has stated holds an "impoverished" understanding of conscience, and which does not respect differences of conscience.  Just because one might believe it is okay to do something a certain way does not mean that another person believes the same.  And it is wrong to coerce another person in doing what they deeply believe to be wrong even if one may think it is for a perceived good (in this case, the death of a suffering person), no matter how hard one tries to justify this coercion by looking to other people who may have reconciled their own consciences with the objectionable act.  This is where differences in conscience plays out, and so far, the Liberal government has firmly decided it would only protect the conscience rights of some, but not all, health professionals in trying to achieve that "balance" so oft spoken.

What your party has demonstrated by word and action is that it is okay to not respect those who cannot participate in an effective referral for the death of their patient.  If this is not what you believe, and only what your party has asked you to support, then I am truly sorry that you are placed in a position in which you must contort your own words and actions so as to align yourself with what has been asked of you, without the freedom to voice what you truly believe.  And if your words and actions are indeed a true representation of what you believe and stand for, then I am saddened that you are unable to see the truth behind the harms that your beliefs and position will cause for the greater society.  One of the best, most comprehensive speeches I have heard on the subject was given by Cardinal Müller.  You may wish to read the full text here.

When the voice of reason became overshadowed by political antics on an issue that should never have become a victim of partisan politics, I came to the clear realization that if the majority government espouses values that are fundamentally different from my own, elected members of provincial parliament will only do what their Party dictates, and not, as I had previously supposed and hoped, what we elected them to be, as a voice for their constituents.  In casting my vote at the next election, I will bear this in mind, and favour a party (and not any one individual), that has demonstrated a commitment to upholding the fundamental freedoms upon which our democracy rests.

Despite my deep disappointment and sadness over a situation that remains incomprehensible to me, I just want you to know that I think of you and pray for you often, for your well-being, and for your good.  I ask that perhaps you might also do the same for me, and keep me in your prayers.

your local physician

Friday, June 9, 2017

Charter challenge - we won - you can't hide abortion information

The Judge ruled in our favour. See judgement here:

We were successful and the portion of the law excluding abortion-related information was struck down.

CPCs are there for the woman - before, during, and after pregnancy

By Rebecca Peters

Pregnancy care centres have been accused of being anti-choice with hidden, secret agendas. Let’s take a look at the situation.

Most local pregnancy care centres are faith-based. But what does that mean? Quite simply, it means that everything they do is based on their love for God and the truth of the Bible – that all life has value. That’s it. Everyone that works at a centre, whether staff or volunteer, shares these beliefs. They don’t preach them. They simply live them, by loving and honouring all life and every person that walks through the door, regardless of that person’s age, race, gender, or religion.

Pregnancy care centres offer medically accurate information on all three options available to a woman when she is pregnant – abortion, adoption, and parenting. The information is presented in a straightforward and unbiased way, because centres believe that when given accurate information, women are smart enough and fully capable of making the best decision for themselves. The only suggestion made to a woman facing a pregnancy decision is – take the time needed to make this important life decision.

Pregnancy care centres are not political. In fact, they are very careful in their words and their actions to stay away from controversy and politics. What they care about is meeting a woman where she is at and walking alongside her. No politics, no agendas. Centres provide a non-judgemental and confidential, safe place to be real and be heard. They offer resources, referrals, material supports, and programs. All for free, all regardless of the woman’s decision.

Pregnancy care centres are actually very much pro-woman. They are there for the woman – before, during, and after pregnancy … even if that pregnancy ends in abortion. Pre-pregnancy: education is provided on healthy relationships. During pregnancy: information is offered and support is given in the form of prenatal education and free maternity clothes and baby supplies. Post-pregnancy: centres provide a safe and supportive community, either in the form of parenting classes or post-abortion groups and support.

Yes, the staff and volunteers at pregnancy care centres love babies. But they love the woman too. Because they know it’s not easy, some of them have worn the exact same shoes … the shoes that walk into a doctor’s office with dread and walk out of an abortion clinic with a broken heart.

Pregnancy care centres believe every woman has the right to make a well-informed choice, with all of the facts and unconditional love and support.

This article originally appeared at Faith Today. Reprinted with permission by the author.

Rebecca Peters is Communications Liaison for the Canadian Association of Pregnancy Support Services (, an affiliate organization of The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, publisher of Faith Today (Canada’s Christian magazine).

Thursday, June 1, 2017

Why was this column in the Toronto Star even published?

I don't get it. This article by Emma Teitel in the Star is based on the now proven to be false statement that Andrew Scheer referred to a same-sex marriage bill as “abhorrent.” In fact at the very top of the article the Star published a correction to the article whose entire premise begins with a false allegation.
"Correction – June 1, 2017: This column mistakenly states that Andrew Scheer referred to same-sex marriage bill as“abhorrent.” In fact, Scheer’s statement referred to the treatment of Roman Catholic Bishop Fred Henry being called before a Human Rights Tribunal for speaking out about the Catholic Church’s position on same-sex marriage. In his speech, Scheer said: “To think that a Catholic bishop must answer to a civil authority over matters of faith is abominable. It is abhorrent to me, to other Catholics and to every member of every faith community. It is abhorrent because the very essence of being a religious official is to teach the faith and instruct the faithful. There is an inherent right for religious officials to do so.”
So why did the Star publish the article at all? Is it because it's just too much fun to trash social conservatives?

Now I don't usually read the Star but Michael Coren--now a good friend of the Star--tweeted it. Coren thought it was a "very good column".

Can a column be very good when it's based on a falsehood? What am I missing here?

Double standard alive and well for pro-life people

By Patricia Maloney

Mayor Jim Watson and my councillor Tobi Nussbaum never had the courtesy to answer my question as to why our rights of peaceful protest were ignored when the Ottawa Police re-routed the March for Life. Mind you I'm used to politicians not answering my questions since apparently we don't deserve the same respect as other people.

Now Watson is asking for a bubble zone. Christie Blatchford's take on this in today's National Post:
"Let it never be said that the state is shy about using an elephant gun to kill a flea.
I give you the latest musings of Ontario Attorney General Yasir Naqvi, who this week announced that next fall, his government is going to legislate “safe access zones” around abortion clinics to “help ensure the safety and privacy of women, visitors and health-care workers travelling to and from these facilities.”
Naqvi, who represents a downtown Ottawa riding where a Morgentaler Clinic is located, alluded to recent “serious instances of intimidation, harassment and even assault” towards patients there. Urging the province to act were Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson and Catherine Macnab of Planned Parenthood Ottawa.
Perhaps there’s a real issue in Ottawa, though there has been little hard reporting of it. Some protesters there wear sandwich boards featuring photos of lurid and cut-up bodies, and yell at patients that they are killing their babies, clinic staff say."
Good point. If there's been so many problems at the Morgentaler facility, where is all the reporting of it? And if there are bone-fide problems why don't the police deal with them? Like they do everywhere else there are harassment problems?

In fact in 2012 abortion doctor Wendy Norman said this in her study Abortion health services in Canada:
“Facilities reported very little harassment. No Canadian facility reported a resignation of an abortion provider–physician or any staff member owing to harassment. Only a single facility reported any resignation of an allied health professional staff member, and in this case the facility specified that the one resignation was not owing to violence, fear, or threats. Similarly, two-thirds of reporting facilities (49 of 74, 66.2%) indicated no episodes of harassment or violence in 2012, with a further 28.4% (21 of 74) reporting solely picketing without interference. Among 7 facilities reporting “other” episodes of harassment, half specified only receipt of harassing e-mail.”
So if one of Canada's premier abortion doctors says there is virtually no harassment or problems at abortion facilities, why is Yasir Naqvi and Jim Watson using an elephant gun to to kill a flea? It's because there are two sets of standards in "civilized" society today. One set for pro-life people. And one set for everybody else.

Monday, May 29, 2017

Trudeau shares Pope Francis's faith?

Justin Trudeau and Pope Francis from 1310 news:
"Trudeau, a religious Catholic, says the meeting was also an opportunity to have a deeply personal discussion with the leader of his faith."

Trudeau as a religious Catholic? You know, Francis wasn't born yesterday.

Michael Coren earns his liberal creds

By Patricia Maloney

Brian Lilley interviews the new Conservative leader Andrew Scheer. Scheer isn't scary. Really.

Unlike Justin Trudeau who bans pro-life people from his party, Andrew Scheer, and in fact all Conservatives, don't ban any group from their party. Social conservatives are welcome. Fiscal conservatives are welcome. Even Libertarian Maxime Bernier is welcome. Heck Bernier almost won. A real big tent party. Not the Liberals. They pretend they are inclusive when they're exclusive. The Liberals are inclusive only as long as you are not pro-life.

Of course I also expected our Liberal media to be all over Andrew Scheer since he is pro-life. And I wasn't disappointed. The first piece I read by our liberal media was Michael Coren, who has now made his transition complete to being a full fledged member of the liberal media.

You see, a lot more work comes your way when you belong to the pro-choice media.

Coren attempts to analyze Scheer 's becoming leader in light of the fact that he is a social conservative. This  of course gives Coren a nice sounding board to trash social conservatives who he says are neither "sensible" nor "informed". And of course Coren buys into the mandatory fable no good liberal can be without: "woman's right to control her own body". No Michael the unborn child is another person's body though I'm pretty sure you know that.
"Most sensible and informed people in Canada believe in a woman’s right to control her own body and reproduction, and even those who may have some moral reservations about abortion accept the legal and political status quo.
And this:
"In other words, the argument is over."
Another pro-choice fallacy.

And what else are we according to Coren?
Fringe, irrelevant, eccentric, mostly ignored, zealots and hysterical.
He calls us "pro-lifers" in quotes. Is it because Coren thinks he's picking up a soiled piece of trash and has to hold his nose? And for the cherry on top Coren takes a pot shot at Roman Catholics (who he used to be) and Dutch Calvinist Churches.
"Members of this movement are usually Roman Catholic or from one of the various Dutch Calvinist churches; they are generally young, often with a home-schooled or private Christian education background; they are politically right wing on a number of causes; and they have jettisoned the moderation of some of their elders, and also learned lessons from “pro-lifers” south of the border."
Yep. Coren's transition is complete.

Friday, May 26, 2017

How peaceful prolife people are treated

By Patricia Maloney

Since I couldn't get my councillor Tobi Nussbaum or mayor Jim Watson to answer my questions about why the March of life was rerouted, I asked Chief Bordeleau.

He replied:
"What I can tell you with respect to the demonstration is that the Ottawa Police Service is present during demonstrations to ensure the safety and security of all participants and observers.
Although routes are pre-approved, officers on the ground may be required to make decisions to deviate from a planned route for a number of reasons including for reasons associated with public safety.
Demonstrations are dynamic in nature and officers must make decisions on site which were required that day."
My subsequent reply:

Dear Chief Bordeleau,

First I would like to thank you for responding to my letter. As I have mentioned already, my councillor Tobi Nussbaum and mayor Jim Watson have not responded to my question.

Second I am confused by your response. The counter protesters were originally stationed at the corner of Elgin and Slater on the East side of Elgin.

Then they began to cross to the west side of Elgin, stopping in the middle of the street, and then they stood in the middle of the street, all the while the police enabling this action, and not insisting that they stay put, and out of the path we were approved to take.

So...we were then diverted because the police were allowing the counter protesters to force us to change routes. Why instead were the counter protesters not kept back to their original spot? Why were the police's actions being dictated by a handful of masked angry protesters? At the expense of our 14,000 peaceful protesters? It is important to us to march past the Human Rights monument because we support human rights for all Canadians including unborn children, and this is why we take this route.

Why were we diverted because these others were allowed to prevent our charter right to peacefully protest and express our pro-life views? Why didn't the police divert them instead? 

With all due respect Chief Bordeleau, I will answer that question for you since I have no allusions that you will provide me with an answer that makes sense.

It is because there is a double standard in Ottawa. It is because there is a double standard in Canada. There are millions of pro-life people, and there is everyone else. Because we stand up and defend pre-born Canadians who are unable to defend or protect themselves--we are marginalized; we are shunned; we are spat on; we have profanities yelled at us; we get the finger as if we are some kind of disgusting human being. And we get angry masked protesters too cowardly to show their faces, threaten us. That's what it's like to be pro-life. And the police protect these other people instead of protecting the peaceful pro-life people.

Here's a thought  experiment for you. Imagine the gay pride parade going down Elgin St. Then imagine a group of 50 people counter protesting the gay pride parade. Would your police officers divert the gay pride parade because of these counter protesters? I guarantee you that they would not. If they did, there would be outrage in the land.

And now our mayor is asking for a bubble zone around the abortion clinic. Why? Because allegedly there were a few individuals who behaved improperly. If they did, why weren't they dealt with by the police when they did it? No the solution to the possibility of a few individuals behaving inappropriately, is for our Mayor to send a Tomahawk missile to curtail our rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. That's how we are treated. 

And make no mistake. 99.9 % of pro-life people do not condone or would never engage in any kind of aggressive, abusive behaviour; they wouldn't dream of behaving this way. If some people did behave this way then deal with it with your police officers.

Once again Chief Bordeleau, I would like to thank you for having the courtesy and respect for a citizen of Ottawa--albeit a pro-life person quite used to not receiving replies--to reply to my email.

Patricia Maloney

Friday, May 19, 2017

Ottawa Citizen agrees to change policy regarding pro-life letters

I think it's time we insist that newspapers use the word "pro-life" to describe us. Newspapers usually call us "anti-abortion". I took issue with this policy last week when I wrote a letter to the Ottawa Citizen after they changed a letter I wrote where I used "pro-life" to "anti-abortion"

I then contacted the Citizen and explained that I had a big problem with this change.

Then ensued a correspondence between myself and Christina Spencer, the editorial pages editor. She said they would review their policy of using the word "anti-abortion" instead of pro-life" after I explained how unfair this policy was to us, since we call ourselves "pro-life". And that, just like how editors call themselves editors and not "word-changers", we like to be called "pro-life" and not "anti-abortion".

In putting forth our position on calling ourselves "pro-life" I then explained:
"Cardinal Collins never used the word abortion in his homily. He used the words "Sanctity of Life", Gift of Life", "Cause of Life", "March for Life", etc. He also spoke about euthanasia and assisted suicide: our view is much broader than anti-abortion, it is about the sanctity of ALL life: 
"anti-abortion" is not what I wrote and definitely not what I meant. If it is the Citizens policy to use that word instead of the word we use ourselves--and the word I always use--the Citizen is manipulating my/our message. 
For someone to read my letter as it stands, who knows little or nothing about life issues, will believe that I/we call ourselves "anti-abortion" when this is simply untrue, misleading to readers, and unfair to us. 
Surely it is not the Citizen's goal to mislead/misrepresent their readers/letter writers? 
...another argument is this: It is one thing for the OC to use the word "anti-abortion" in articles written by staff members (and I don't agree with this either), but it is another thing entirely to change a letter that I have written to use the word "anti-abortion", when clearly the letter should be in my voice, not in the voice of the OC. And the same goes for Cardinal Collins: I was writing about what he said, it wasn't OC staff writing about what he said."
The Citizen has now agreed that:
"letter-writers should be given their own voices as much as possible, regardless of our other style protocols around the issue. As a result, I’ve gone in to our web file and updated your letter to use the term “pro life” where you used it."
I think this is very good news for us at the Ottawa Citizen. Now we need to educate other newspapers in Canada where this policy is practiced.

My letter with the word "pro-life" put back in.

Really boring videos - prelude to Ontario election

Do you want to be bored silly? If yes then watch this video. Kathleen Wynne and company recently discovered youtube. Now she is posting really boring videos on youtube.

Somehow I ended up on a mailing list to tell me that Kathleen is live broadcasting these really boring videos.

Today's installment is about light rail in London.

The first 23 minutes of the video consists of a sign, a microphone and some trees. Blowing in the wind. 23 minutes of this. Like I said. Really boring. I am not kidding.

I wonder if there were any actual people at the announcement other than politicians?

Of course we aren't idiots in Ontario. We all know the point of these really bring videos: the Ontario election is next year. Oh, and the best part? You paid for this really boring video. Along with all those Liberal commercials the Ontario government is airing on the radio. Also paid for by your tax dollars.

Liberal strategy: Announce spending of tax dollars. Tell taxpayer how great we are. Force taxpayer to pay for us to tell them how great we are. Really boring. But effective. Brilliant really.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Jim Watson - Why did you divert our March for Life?

Jim Watson's response to my letter about his decision to take down the pro-life flag.

If you wrote, you probably received the same form letter response.

And notice how he doesn't answer my question about why the March for Life was diverted from its approved route.

I've now asked him this question three times.

Dear Ms. Maloney,
Thank you for your email with respect to the March for Life flag raising. 
The process for issuing proclamations and approving flag raisings is overseen by the Office of Protocol to ensure that the City’s policies are interpreted without a political lens and in keeping with the Ontario Human Rights Code.  As the request from the March for Life group met the test of both policies, the proclamation was issued, as it has been for many years.  This is the first year the request has been made for a flag raising.  It was granted on the same basis as the proclamation. 
While the City’s Flag Protocol Procedures mirror the City’s Proclamation Policy in many ways, a review of this matter by the City Clerk has determined that the request for the flag raising was made by an individual.  This does not meet the criteria and, when this was discovered, the flag was taken down under the authority of the City Clerk. 
With respect to proclamations, all proclamations issued by the City of Ottawa are in accordance with a Policy adopted in 2002.  The provisions in this policy reflect the law in Ontario with respect to proclamations, which ensures that the City’s practices are in line with Ontario’s Human Rights Code.  The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that, because proclamations issued by Mayors in Ontario are a service subject to the provisions of the Human Rights Code, the refusal of a Mayor to issue a proclamation may constitute a contravention of the Human Rights Code if the decision of the Mayor was based on any reason that is protected in the Code or by case law related to the Code. 
Therefore, based on the requirements of human rights law, most municipalities in Ontario have chosen to either eliminate the use of proclamations altogether or issue them using broad criteria.  For this reason, the City of Ottawa’s Policy specifically indicates a Proclamation “should not be interpreted as an endorsement by either the Mayor or the City of Ottawa.’’ 
I have requested that the City Clerk review the Flag Protocol Procedures and the City’s Proclamation Policy, and report back. 
Thank you for your feedback, 
Jim Watson 
City of Ottawa