Pro-Life in a Post-Harper world

As Michael Den Tandt quipped, “Stephen Harper, he of the putative hidden social-conservative agenda, is now de facto leader of Canada’s pro-choice movement.”

There will be no abortion debate on Prime Minister Harper’s watch.

But the Pro-Life movement has learned from the master, and is now focused the long-game – Baby Steps.

Politically Pro-lifers will probably stay in the Conservative tent because the other parties either discourage or totally ban prolife candidates from even running.

But the movement is far from dead. Young people were seen out in full force at yesterday’s March For Life.

This story is not going away, no matter how hard Stephen Harper and the feminists wish it would.

*   *   *   *


Record 25,000 pack Parliament Hill for Canadian March for LifeLifesite (with list of politicians who attended at the end of the article)


Prime Minister expected to conduct ‘major’ Cabinet shuffle this summer Hill Times. Total speculation but an interesting read nonetheless

This entry was posted in Abortion, Adoption is an option, Feminists, Gendercide, PM Stephen Harper. Bookmark the permalink.

108 Responses to Pro-Life in a Post-Harper world

  1. Richco says:

    Want an illustration as to just how WRONG the Ottawa Citizen can be, as it spins and spins and spins it’s left-leaning propaganda? Here’s a blast from the past, when they suggested that Harper and his government should be very afraid of the new Liberal Leader

    These days most every left-leaning media outlet is banging this same drum for Baby T. We’ve heard it ALL before, and too many are falling for it again.

  2. Richco says:

    Joanne – I realize that my posts have nothing to do with your thread topic. I neglected to lead off with an O/T distinction, so people wouldn’t read unrelated stuff.

  3. fh says:

    thank you Brian Lilley for these supportive pictures of the march for life

  4. Gabby in QC says:

    IMO, the mistake the PM has made on this issue is not differentiating between government policy and private members bringing up issues important to them. And once again, it comes down to good communication.

    Rather than being on the defensive, shying away from any hint of a discussion on abortion, the PM should have confirmed what he has expressed in the past:
    • Abortion is a matter of personal conscience.
    • That being the case, his government would not legislate on the issue.
    • However, that would not preclude any individual members from bringing up the issue, thus leaving the path clear to MPs Warawa, Woodworth et al..
    • In the event an abortion-related private member’s bill were introduced, individual members, including cabinet ministers, would be free to vote their conscience, as happened with re-opening the same sex marriage debate back in 2005-2006.
    This part in that link is particularly instructive:
    “By November 2006 the debate had shifted and it was the supporters of same sex marriage that were arguing for a Fall vote on the issue and the opponents who were lobbying for a delay.”
    Could some of Stephen Harper’s opponents now be masquerading as pro-lifers?

    Had the principles listed above been clearly enunciated, including to the Canadian population at large, Mark Warawa’s so-called freedom of speech battle in the House could have been avoided. Instead, that unnecessary battle has facilitated further cementing the opposition’s and the MSM’s tenet that the PM is a control freak who is now facing a backbenchers’ revolt — the “revolt” part of course magnified by the MSM, salivating at the thought Stephen Harper may be losing some ground.

    • Joanne says:

      the mistake the PM has made on this issue is not differentiating between government policy and private members bringing up issues important to them.

      Exactly. Backbenchers are not part of the “Government” as such.

  5. wilson says:

    Agree, this issue is not going away.
    This will come down to winning the hearts and minds of the electorate (who mostly aren’t feminists) .
    Interesting to see how it plays out at the CPC convention and in nomination battles;
    then most importantly on the door steps during an election campaign.

    I’d like to know about these baby steps, as will all constituents, what is the long game?
    An out right ban on abortion? Legislation limiting access to abortion after 20 weeks?
    Are all of the MPs at the rally in agreement on what the ‘long game’ is, can they speak with one voice?

    If the movement is taking lessons from PMSH, then they know there will be compromises they must be willing to make.

    • Gabby in QC says:

      Respectfully, I disagree with your assertion that “the electorate (who mostly aren’t feminists)”.

      That doesn’t mean I believe that a majority of the electorate ARE feminists. What I think happens on most contentious issues is that many electors, who don’t bother to follow politics closely, either have the attitude of don’t bother me, leave well enough alone OR they are easily persuaded by media portrayals of contentious issues.

      I go back to the same sex marriage debate — not that I wish to re-open it, but simply as illustrative of what happened and what can happen again. Even some Liberals were adamant opponents of same sex marriage but in the end they expediently decided not to continue fighting against it — Liberal MP John McKay comes particularly to mind. I wish I could find the video of Don Newman interviewing him, asking him why he wasn’t continuing his opposition to SSM.

      I see this issue as a losing, if not a lost, battle. The mantra of “it’s a woman’s right to choose” has perhaps become too ingrained to suddenly turn the tide, i.e. for electors to start clamouring for abolition of abortion.

      • old white guy says:

        the abortion issue is a losing issue because the majority of Canadians think there is nothing wrong with killing an unborn child in the womb. that is a start assessment but it is true.

      • Richco says:

        “The mantra of “it’s a woman’s right to choose” has perhaps become too ingrained to suddenly turn the tide, i.e. for electors to start clamouring for abolition of abortion.”


        • Joanne says:

          Of course it doesn’t have to be an all or nothing proposition but the extreme prochoice side has done an excellent job spreading fear and propaganda.

          Most politicians are totally intimidated by the notion of any discussion.

          • Fay says:

            I am prochoice but I am definitely “NOT” pro gendercide.
            I am sure all Canadians feel the same.
            I support continuing the fight to stop gender selection abortions.

  6. Bubba Brown says:

    That many young people demonstrating is not a “protest march”.
    That is a political movement for real “change” not the fluffy vacuous borrowed slogan mewled by Baby T.
    Did not Justin Trudeau say that a pro life point of view Liberal MP would be shown the door.?
    Now was that from his caucus or the Liberal party?
    Seems to me that Stephen Harper said he would not bring this to the table.
    While the Media desperately attempts to paint this as a “revolt”
    That is while they are frantically pounding their little tin drums for Baby T.
    Hope, Change and hard work from a dilettante that doesn’t show up for work and has a hissy when his camera crew isn’t allowed to use students as a back drop for Turdo 2 the sequel.
    I think the out come of this will surprise a lot of people, it will definitely be a factor in the next election.
    NDP-Q is whipped on this Liberals think it is a sacrament.
    PM Harper is an incrementalist and as hard as it is to accept he said he had no intention of making this an issue.
    As far as stifling his back benchers goes, is he really?
    All of you know my feelings about abortion, I am definitely for life, I agreed with PM Harper when he said “We need to change hearts, not laws.”
    Are all those marching feet the changing hearts?
    Perhaps Canadians have finally had enough of the “Womens right to choose” pushed by Media and the second and third place partys.
    I always wondered why and how the childs right to survival was trumped and now with selective sex abortion it is even creepier IMO.

  7. Martin says:

    I am wondering what Pro-Life Liberals feel about Trudeau Jr’s announcement. There must be a few in the current caucus and certainly many in the LPC. It would be interesting to hear their views about being dictated to.

    • Joanne says:

      What did Justin say about that again? I’m babysitting right now or would try to look it up myself. Thanks. :)

      • wilson says:

        April 24, Macleans Shelly blogs:
        “[I’m] committed to giving MPs more freedom to represent Canadians, but MPs would be required to support Canadians’ fundamental rights,” he (Trudeau) tweeted a while back. “For me, a woman’s right to choose is a fundamental right.” (He seemed to be suggesting that the motion ran afoul of the Charter, which is absurd.) …

        • Joanne says:

          Thanks Wilson. Yeah that was absurd alright.

          You’d think a human being’s right to life would be a fundamental right too. But of course that would depend on whom we decide is a human being.

  8. Liz J says:

    How could we ever expect there to be free vote from all parties in the HOC on any legislation regarding abortion?

    It’s really telling how the masses are stirred when there’s a majority Conservative government in power. What do they think they can accomplish that would be considered democratic?

  9. robins111 says:

    I’ve become convicted that Harper knows exactly what he’s doing on this issue. He’s stated he won’t make an issue out of abortion in this government, but he seems to be able to get the usual ‘we hate Harper’ crowd, to continue to demand that the subject be broached, not based on a real desire to discuss it, but as a manifestation of Harper Derangement Syndrome… I have also become convince that Harper is far more cunning than any of these twits suspect.

    • Bubba Brown says:

      Well Jo here is J Trudeau’s rating on Campaign for Life Coalition Page;
      There is also this interview where JT specifically mentions abortion as one of the issues that would see him support Quebec separation.
      I agree robins111 PM Harper is once again playing chess, if this is a front doorstep issue in the next election as I said the momentum is there.
      Ask yourselves when was the last time that many people stood up and said we want this changed ?
      The Harper Derangement syndrome is of course playing and the hidden agenda
      did not pan out .
      So TAAA DAAA PM Harper is a control freak!!!
      Coupled with it’s first cousin “back bench revolt”
      Cue the duelling “banjo music” whilst the PM plays piano
      Never mind that an NDP-Q or a Liberal back bencher would not dare go where the Conservative MP’s are.
      As for PM Harper being far more sagacious than the competition robins111 ?
      He is a colossus amongst pygmies IMHCO

      • Joanne says:

        Thanks for that ‘babykiller’ link Bubba. And interesting angle regarding the Master Chess Player aspect. Very, very interesting…

      • Bec says:

        EXACTLY! I think that there are many angles at play here and that the PM is not dropping the ball at all.

        It’s frustrating to not want to voice an opinion because of the goofs that also follow this post but I venture to surmise that the coverage of the devastating realities of abortion (late term) re the trial south of the 49th will resonate.

        WE will get a boundary after that verdict I do trust because human being (not zealot libs or dippers) will have clarity of what we too are doing in this country from a legal standpoint, which has been nothing.

        IMO. there is a strategy. NO ONE with a moral sense of right and wrong could possible hear what a 3rd trimester abortion looks like and sleep at night…….but if they can….they are warped, period.

    • goody says:

      I think you may be right

  10. Gabby in QC says:

    Well, maybe PM Harper is as Machiavellian as some commenters have suggested. I don’t think so, I think that the issue of abortion is a thorn in his side, but I’ll gladly eat crow if and when proven wrong.

    Despite the number of pro-life marchers, it seems the majority of Canadians don’t want outright abolition of abortion; a number want some form of regulation; only a small percentage want outright abolition.
    Yes, I realize that polls can be wrong too. So what’s the answer? Keep raising the issue in its various forms?
    In addition to gendercide, abortion under coercion, late-term abortion, should these issues be raised as well?
    • How much does it cost the healthcare system to provide abortions versus contraception?
    • Should abortion on demand be free & completely available to repeat aborters?

    I believe abortion is a matter of conscience. Consequently, if a woman wants to exercise her conscience, her “right to choose”, she should bear some of the financial burden. I don’t see why I should share in “her choice”. I would rather my contribution to the healthcare system go towards preventing conception rather than to ending life.

  11. JDot says:

    I have not been following politics at all since the majority W. So what the hell is going on?

    Some back bench MPs trying to bring up abortion, PM who campaigned against it not happy?

    MSM happy with glee, with the thought that this would somehow bring down the CPC in someway 2 years from now. And tear apart CPC?

    Basically democracy in motion?

    Is that the gist off it?

    • wilson says:

      MPs using Private Members Bills to bring anti-abortion into Parliament.
      PM put a stop to MP making a members statement re: the PMB on sex selection abortion.
      MPs get in uproar over their ‘rights to free speech’ in the House,
      Opps and media make mischief and chime in to embarrass PMSH, call it a revolt. MP asks Speaker to rule on PMSH stripping them of their rights.
      Speaker Sheer rules that MPs can stand up anytime and be recognised by the Speaker as a way around the Whips list to speak.
      MP does exactly that.
      Opps and media hopeful this issue will be the silver bullet that splits the CPC into 2 parts again, resulting in a 2015 loss cuz Canadians don’t vote for a party at war with itself.

  12. Martin says:

    So far media has treated abortion related stories only as having effect on the CPC, either from the hidden agenda angle, or the problem for Stephen Harper from backbenchers.
    The assumption is that all pro-life MPs are in the CPC. If Solomon were a real reporter (hard to write this) he might want to talk to Liberals like Jim Karygiannis. Rather than listen to Ian Capstick go into rug chewing mode, some other views from opposition MPs might be of interest in this debate.

  13. ed says:

    Quebec euthanasia rally could mark turning point.
    Written by Deborah Gyapong, Canadian Catholic News
    Friday, 10 May 2013 08:45

    “OTTAWA – A major demonstration against euthanasia in Quebec City planned for May 18 could mark a turning point in the province’s plans to introduce euthanasia as a form of health care, some pro-life leaders believe.”

    “Organizers are protesting against the Quebec government’s “medical aid in dying” law expected to be tabled this spring.”

    “The rally begins on May 18 at noon on the Plains of Abraham. As crowds gather, they will march to the Quebec National Assembly to hear speeches outside the parliament building.”

    “The organizers have listed nine reasons why euthanasia is “always wrong” on its web site (”

    “The organizers point out that when patients and their families get the support they need, demand for euthanasia “disappears.””

    “Even complex cases can be treated without euthanasia; changing the law will put people who have not asked to die in danger; decriminalization of euthanasia is a slippery slope that could extend to the euthanasia of even the young with mental health problems; the right to die is really the right of doctors to kill; euthanasia ends up promoting suicide; and it undermines the more than 2,000 years of Hippocratic tradition in the medical profession against doing harm.”

    Quebec is in the hands of the pro-choice groups, no surprise there. Trudeau gives the Quebec point of view on this issue. I believe there are fundamental differences between Quebec and Canada on numerous issues. The philosophy is different, no question about it. If Trudeau ever became PM (insanity), he would promote the Quebec vision for this country.

    Twenty years before Hitler took power in Germany, the practice of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia was widespread in the German hospitals and institutions. I don’t think we want to go down that road.

    For me, abortion is murder. To permit it is to say this unborn can live, this unborn must die. So much for the principle of choice.

  14. Stan says:

    CBC has a few stories up on the March For Life.
    Any mention of Gosnell in a comment there gets 100% censorship.

    Might be time for a little experiment…

  15. ed says:

    “However, if a woman chooses to end her pregnancy before the point of viability, then scientifically speaking, what has been lost?”

    Viability: the ability of a premature baby to survive outside the womb. — it is a measure of the sophistication of the external life support systems, of the knowledge and the ability of the doctors, nurses, and laboratories around the baby, it is NOT a measurement of the baby himself/herself.

    So determining human life on the basis of viability is terribly wrong.

  16. fh says:

    Mahatma Ghandi said ” A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.’

  17. fh says:

    if like me you question this term “a woman’s right to choose”
    we are not alone

  18. fh says:

    Human life must matter we must discuss this growing Abortion industry follow the money
    Pro choice for life is growing

  19. Liz J says:

    Geeze, poor Mike Duffy, he has to be the worst offender of the rules to ever have sat in the Senate if we are to go by the media coverage which has even made it into the cartoon realm.

    • Gabby in QC says:

      It’s the usual double standard. Remember this?
      “… But the issue isn’t Senator Fairbairn. It is a question of ethics in a nebulous situation where there may have been a coverup concerning her health and her ability to vote freely. …” So, it appears the Liberals were apparently willing to keep Senator Fairbairn “at work” despite her debilitated condition.

      That made me wonder if questions about Senator Fairbairn’s “primary residence” were ever raised by the Press Gallery.
      “Fairbairn worked as a journalist in the Parliamentary Press Gallery in Ottawa before being hired as a legislative assistant to Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in 1970. In 1981, she became Communications Coordinator in the Prime Minister’s Office. On June 29, 1984, just prior to leaving office, Trudeau recommended her for appointment as a Liberal senator for Alberta, her home province.” [Wiki article]

      Sounds a lot like Mike Duffy’s career path, with her working in Ottawa. Where did Sen. Fairbairn have her primary residence? And did she file claims for living expenses once she became a senator? I don’t know. All I’m arguing is that if Mike Duffy’s living expenses claims were inappropriate, then I hope Senator Fairbairn’s living expense claims, if she made any, received the same kind of scrutiny. And that goes for ALL senators.

      • Liz J says:

        Wonder how far back they’ll be checking living expense claims of all Senators?

      • Jen says:

        If Duffy was to step down as conservative senator to run as a liberal senator- every media would cease instantly. Look what happened with NDP Bob Rae, who bankrupt Ontario and prorogued his provincial government for almost 4months before calling an election. All of that story of his mess to Ontario came to abrupted end when Paul Martin elected him into his LIBERAL party.

  20. Gabby in QC says:

    Tomorrow being Mother’s Day …
    “Mother delays cancer therapy to save unborn child, makes stunning full recovery”
    I don’t know what has happened since, given that the article dates back to Aug 2012. Hopefully, both mother & child continue to be in good health.

  21. Liz J says:

    Just for more added drama/entertainment the Dipper head of the budget tag team of Andrea and Kathleen has made more demands.

    How much can Kathleen cede without ending up with an NDP budget?

    • Jen says:

      Andrea doesn’t have to do much to get what she wants from the liberals; all she has to do is remind Kathleen of the liberals abuse of the Ontarians tax dollars and before you know it, Andrea gets what Andrea wants. Very simply.

      • Martin says:

        Except Andrea doesn’t quite know what she wants. Whatever she gets it can never be enough. She really wants to be premier but doesn’t want to go through an election.

        • Liz J says:

          If she wants to be premier she’s backing the wrong horse to go into an election.

          • Jen says:

            Ahhh…. no dearest, she is not backing the wrong horse at all. As a matter of fact she might use the liberals’ disaster to Ontario as bleating sheep til the public hears her and no amount of media can shut her up or else they too would come up telling the public that if it wasn’t for the media Dalton would have been gone a very long time ago. but the media kept his scandals to a bare minimun from the public.
            In other words the media are just to blame as Dalton and the liberals.
            It is no wonder the media is very quiet around her because of what she might say about them.

  22. Joanne says:

    O.K. Little guy’s gone home after sleepover at Grandma’s. Time to catch up. 😉

  23. Gabby in QC says:

    This is O/T but it brilliantly articulates most of the criticisms regular readers express about the MSM.
    “… I [Brian Lee Crowley, Managing Director of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute] tried to tell the story of the positive developments that are the most likely outcome of this increased aboriginal power recently when my institute launched a new project on Aboriginal Canada and the Natural Resource Economy, but I made a bad mistake. I underestimated the power of important segments of the media to subvert a good news story that conflicted with their prejudices. Conflict and anxiety sell. Blossoming partnership doesn’t. …”
    My added emphasis.

    • Richco says:

      we not only criticize the MSM for similar reasons but we spend hours and hours in conflict and anxiety over that same conflict and anxiety that sells, essentially retelling it right her on social media.

      I recall how several times discussions on blogs have tried to turn positive just as Brian Lee Crowley tried to do, but time and time again the discussion morphs to the negative and it’s those negative MSM offerings that we love to hang on and spend time frustrating over.

      The usual response? Someone’s got to do it. Really?

      • Gabby in QC says:

        This is where we usually disagree, Richco.

        I don’t mean to be disrespectful but you often choose to highlight something Warren Kinsella has said or written. Unless I’m mistaken, nobody here criticizes you for doing so. Yet time and again you choose to lecture commenters who decide to express opinions about something they’ve read or heard in the MSM. IMO, we commenters should all be free to choose our own poison.

        Before anyone shudders at the thought of such “poison” consider this: “There are poisons that blind you, and poisons that open your eyes.” August Strindberg []

        What kind of real discussion or debate would take place if the MSM’s inaccuracies, or “wafer stories” as Fay aptly put it in the previous thread, were not pointed out and discussed? Pointing out media inaccuracies or lies does not equal negativity for its own sake nor wallowing in frustration for the sake of frustration. I’m sure others point out those inaccuracies with the hope that somehow the facts will filter out to a wider audience, an audience whose opinions are shaped by MSM inaccuracies and an audience that wields a very powerful weapon: their vote.

        That is what I understood from the Brian Lee Crowley quote I linked to above. That the MSM filter of negativity has to be shattered and penetrated to allow the general public to ascertain the facts.

        • Richco says:

          I will not disappoint you today then either Gabby.

          You try to be very selective in your word choices.

          You see my posts as lecturing commenters who have expressed their opinions.

          I see it as challenging a contradiction.
          I also see it as examples of how we all like to talk a good game, you and I included but are just as bound by the traps as everyone else.
          If you advocate for us all to be free to choose our poison then why are you lecturing me for sharing my poison?
          Take it or not.
          “What kind of real discussion or debate would take place if the MSM’s inaccuracies, or “wafer stories” as Fay aptly put it in the previous thread, were not pointed out and discussed? ”
          Were we discussing inaccuracies Gabby? I don’t recall that that was the case. What we were discussing in this particular thread was Crowley’s experience with going positive in an increasingly go-negative media world.
          You really don’t know for sure on a vehicle like this why others hang on the negative. Not really. Do you?
          Neither do I.
          I do know that it’s one thing to point out the inaccuracies of the repeat offending media but what I took Crowley to infuse is that rather than change the media pull toward negativity it is he (or WE) who have to change.
          Often, too often by some counts we discuss those inaccuracies in circles hoping for a cure that never comes.

          • Gabby in QC says:

            “What we were discussing in this particular thread was Crowley’s experience with going positive in an increasingly go-negative media world.”
            No, actually, WE were not discussing anything at all. I merely pointed to an article, Crowley’s, in which he expresses concern for the media’s penchant to “… subvert a good news story that conflicted with their prejudices. …”. That is what struck me in that piece, the media’s propensity to subvert or present inaccuracies based on their own biases. That was my interpretation of the article and I decided to share it with others.

            Your response? I may be wrong in interpreting it but you seemed to repeat your frequent criticism of other commenters by saying: “… it’s those negative MSM offerings that we love to hang on and spend time frustrating over.
            The usual response? Someone’s got to do it. Really?”

            Yes, really. My thing is pointing out media inaccuracies or biases. Other commenters’ thing may be to highlight different things, focusing on personalities, political parties’ strategy, or whatever. Others still post links they consider interesting or helpful to a discussion. Everyone here contributes in his/her own way. And everyone should feel free to choose how (s)he chooses to do so. That was my point.

            BTW … I’m not alone in thinking media inaccuracies need correction.
            “CBS News anchor Pelley rips journalists, including himself, for lack of care”
            Fri, 10 May, 2013

            • Joanne says:

              I’m glad we can have differences of opinion here and still remain respectful of each other. :)

            • Richco says:

              You seem hung up on equating my postings to equally that of lectures or criticisms Gabby.

              That may be your interpretation. It’s a wrong one from my perspective but it’s yours nevertheless.

              You made up your mind long ago about what you read in to my posts IMO. You’ve not really waivered in that respect.

              That I got something else from Crowley’s piece shouldn’t surprise you at all given how accepting you are of the choice and perspectives of others….wrong as mine may be to you.

              As you said yourself I’ve been consistent in raising the rather interesting point that it’s not just about raising inaccuracies or biases but also infusing our own frustrations in to the mix to point of something that I believe sucks people in to a black hole but never materializes in to necessary change……as Crowley himself experienced.

              We’re not victims, yet we still play that role very, very well with the media, as if the media held any effective sway on the lives of Canadians at all.

              It doesn’t IMO.

              Instead of writing our own narratives, which we can do now thanks to our media friendlies who we’ve highlighted once before several times, we live off the scraps of the usual media mutts.

              Maybe that’s the choice of others but that’s not my choice, or the choice of the media pundits I choose to read or refer to.

              • Gabby in QC says:

                “… we live off the scraps of the usual media mutts.
                Maybe that’s the choice of others but that’s not my choice, or the choice of the media pundits I choose to read or refer to.”

                So, in effect, we agree: everyone here can choose to dwell on whatever (s)he chooses, be it some media’s inaccuracies or some columnists’ Harper Derangement Syndrome … OR the Harper-friendlier but nevertheless rarer media.

                So where’s the beef? Since we apparently agree that everyone’s free to choose how we individually deal with and react to the media, there seems to be no point in going on & on about it, is there? Consequently, I hope I won’t offend you if I stop replying to any further comment of yours on this issue.

              • Richco says:

                there is no beef Gabby.
                YOU accused ME of lecturing and criticizing when what I was doing is no different than what you are doing.
                You were wrong in making that assumption.

  24. Gabby in QC says:

    Sad news for the Conservative caucus and in particular for HR Minister Diane Finley:
    “Canadian Senator Doug Finley dies after battle with cancer”

  25. ed says:

    O/T: but most important – freedom of speech.

    “Selective Freedom Of Expression In Canada”
    Tuesday, May 07, 2013
    By: Howard Galganov — Excerpts:

    “Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper, is the MOST Pro-Israel Prime Minister Canada has ever had. But that doesn’t change the LEFTIST anti-Israel mood for most of the country.
    Before Harper, Canada’s successive Liberal Governments couldn’t find enough anti-Israel Resolutions at the UN to put our signature on. And since Harper, Israel has found no greater friend at the UN.
    In fact, during the time of the last election . . . Harper had said (to paraphrase): “Even if supporting Israel costs me my election, I WILL SUPPORT ISRAEL”.”

    “The LEFTIST Liberal party always lays claim to be friends to Israel, since they have a great deal of financial and political support from Canadian LEFTIST Jews.
    But, nothing could be further from the truth concerning Liberal support for Israel, unless Israel is willing to cede all the territory that is demanded by the Arab Palestinians, and then live off the welfare they will demand from the Big Bad Greedy Israeli Jews.”


    “…… hold a week long annual event to promote HATRED towards Israel ….
    counter protests …… considered by the “authorities” to be a provocation, and are generally NOT tolerated.”

    “Netanyahu’s speech was cancelled. MONTREAL’S ISLAMISTS WON. FREEDOM LOST.”
    “… Ann Coulter …. scheduled to speak at the University of Ottawa …. cancelled ….”

    “…. Coulter was warned in advance by the University’s Provost; François Houle, that in Canada, FREEDOM OF SPEECH HAS ITS LIMITS.”

    “Pamela Geller is a New York City Activist who has become internationally famous for opposing the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque, and against the spread of Islamism throughout the USA, who is the executive director of Stop Islamification of America,”
    “Geller was invited by the Toronto JDL (Jewish Defense League) to speak at a Chabad Synagogue, that was CANCELLED because York Regional Police Inspector Ricky Veerappan DIDN’T THINK THAT WHAT GELLER HAD TO SAY SHOULD BE SAID PUBLICLY.”

    The Police didn’t cancel her speech, but made it clear to the Rabbi of the Chabad Synagogue . . . Mendel Kaplanof, that he might no longer be welcomed to serve as a volunteer Police Chaplain if he let this event go forward.
    So, the GUTLESS Rabbi cancelled it.”

    One thing about Mr. Galganov – – he doesn’t mince words.

  26. ed says:

    O/T: “A GREAT LETTER FROM A GREAT CANADIAN:” — Excerpts: Part 2:
    “Richard (Dick) Field served his country and the world during WWII in combat in Belgium, Holland and Germany as a Royal Canadian Artillery Signaler, when he was just 18 years old.
    Dick is extremely active to this day, fighting tirelessly against the Federal Government of Canada and LEFTIST Groups, which use underhanded ways to restrict Freedom of Expression.”
    “Dear Chief Jolliffe; I am dismayed that you have directed your police to interfere in what is an important Public Service provided by Pamela Geller to help inform the public of the dangerous political manifestations of the war Islam is waging against all Canadians and indeed the Western democratic world.
    Please understand that Mosques are not Churches or Synagogues, they are the local command and control centers of Islam. Islam is fundamentally a political dictatorship seeking to overthrow our democratic system by the imposition of their barbaric Sharia Law.”
    “Your Duty as the executive arm of the law is to enforce our laws. Foremost among them is to protect FREE SPEECH, …”
    “You need to protect any courageous person or group that seeks to warn us against Islam’s worldwide war against western civilization.”
    “Please rethink your actions Chief Jolliffe and apologize to those you have threatened because of a complaint by some stealth Jihadist (war making by deceit) Muslim cleric.”
    Sincerely, Richard D. Field
    Toronto, Ontario.

    “Why does it take a man who is well into his years, who had already laid his life and limb on the line in the pursuit of FREEDOM more than 70 years ago, to FIGHT yet again for FREEDOM in his own country?
    And why are the vast majority of the people of Canada so APATHETIC,… ”

    There is much more to read in the above article. It’s great to be able to read diverse views on all issues that concern us. A way to move forward.

  27. JDot says:

    RIP to the great Doug Finley. We lost a great Conservative. My prayers and thoughts Mrs Finley and her family.

  28. fh says:

    Sorry to learn of the death of Doug Finlay. Prayers and thoughts for his family.

  29. Bubba Brown says:

    I see my MP James Lunney stood with the marchers for life, good for you James!
    It has upset some people, I will stand with him also and have sent him an e-mail to that effect.
    To paraphrase Martin Luthor “Here we stand we can do no other”
    As the great, late Ronnie Reagan said
    “Everyone that is in favor of abortion has already been born”

  30. fh says:

    Happy Mothers day
    some videos found here for your interest “A Mother’s Prayer” Celine Dion

  31. fh says:

    another favourite of mine and honours our Mothers Celine Dion

  32. Joanne says:

    Happy Mother’s Day to everyone who is a Mom or ever had one.

    So Happy Mother’s Day everybody!! :)

    And let’s especially celebrate women who chose life instead of abortion, whether they kept their babies or allowed some other deserving couple to adopt their child.

    • Liz J says:

      Yes, Happy Mother’s Day to all and happy reflections and memories for those Moms and Grandmothers who have gone before us who remain solidly in our hearts forever.

  33. Bubba Brown says:

    Happy Mothers day to you all past and present.
    I think of Mom often, she has passed this world six years ago, and on this of all mornings take down a very small inlaid wooden case from my shelf.
    Mom and Dad spent their retirement in a very small cabin on a sheltered inlet on our west coast.
    Mom’s hair was very thick and wavy and silver, a real mane.
    She used to clean her brushes on the patio and her hair would drift away on the breeze down to the ocean.
    One day Dad walked in with a find from his morning ramble on the beach with the dog.
    It was a small perfectly made birds nest, woven with care and love by another mom, this one a very small bird.
    It was lined with strands of silver from my Mom’s discarded hair.
    It is the last physical thing I can touch of my Mom’s.
    I can no longer hold her hand.
    Look into her eyes and share a cuppa sharing our love of politics and anything and everything.
    Love you Mom, I know you are in a better place.

    • Joanne says:

      That’s a wonderful tribute Bubba, and a reminder to us all with mothers still living that we not take them for granted.

  34. fh says:

    the media have gone stir crazy
    Mothers Day
    Stephen Harper wished all Canadian Mothers a Happy Mothers Day
    Too bad JT forgot to wish all Canadian Mothers a Happy Mothers Day

  35. Gabby in QC says:

    Here’s an interesting study on who are the gabbiest MPs in the HoC (via Susan Delacourt article on NNW):
    And on a different tack …
    Some people who would like to see the Senate abolished use the current controversy surrounding some senators’ alleged inappropriate living expenses claims as an argument in favour of abolition. Some critics even claim (inaccurately, IMO) that the Conservatives flip-flopped on the Senate. They claim, like Martin Patriquin did in last Friday’s Power & Politics, that the Conservatives wanted to appoint enough Conservatives to the Senate so that they could eventually abolish it. Completely untrue, IMO.

    Another media personality, perhaps not as well-known as Martin Patriquin, even went so far as to say that Stephen Harper himself had originally wanted the Senate abolished. Ethan Cox, whose columns appear on and who occasionally guests on a local radio station, made that incorrect assertion a few days ago.

    • Liz J says:

      Stephen Harper would prefer Senators be elected but the only way he could do it without opening the Constitution is with co-operation from the provinces, having people run for the Senate and appoint the winner. There seems to be no interest.
      I have never heard him say he wants to abolish the Senate.

      • Richco says:

        he never has Liz J.
        Are we writing, calling or contacting for positive corrections? Some may be but we’ll never know will we?
        If there are no consequences for inaccuracies, what’s going to change things?
        (I’m asking, not lecturing or criticizing)

        • Richco says:

          My assumption is that by identifying the inaccuracies and bias in reporting that we are looking for change.
          Please let me know if I’m wrong in that assumption.

      • Gabby in QC says:

        You’re right. The only time I know of that the PM hinted at abolition was when he addressed the Australian Parliament in 2007:
        “Australia’s Senate shows how a reformed Upper House can function in our parliamentary system.
        And Canadians understand that our Senate, as it stands today, must either change or, like the old Upper Houses of our provinces, vanish.”

        And because there has been little enthusiasm or cooperation for senate reform, the PM has referred the question to the SC:

  36. Gabby in QC says:

    Still on the Senate … all those in high dudgeon about living expense claims cite Senator Duffy’s apparent failure to meet 4 requirements proving residency in a particular province:
    • provincial health card
    • copy of driver’s licence
    • filing of income tax returns
    • name on voters’ eligibility list

    IMO, those current requirements prove the Senate rules are anachronistic & unclear.
    • The healthcare card, I assume, began to be issued once the Canada Health Act was adopted — in 1984. The Senate was part of the Constitution Act 1867, thus no such requirement was possible.
    • Driver’s licence? Maybe for horse & buggy, but not for cars back in 1867.
    • Income tax was introduced in 1917 (as a temporary measure!) so income tax returns too were not required proof of a senator’s primary residency.
    • As for proof of where one votes, I believe some people can vote in a riding other than where they live, e.g. students. Why not senators?

    So all of the above tells me that the rules governing senators are not as clear-cut as some think.

    However, I’m not excusing any senator who has made real wrongful claims. Whenever the question of MPs’ or senators’ salaries & perks come up, I’ve maintained I’d prefer their salaries be increased but many of the perks be abolished. For instance, why should an MP or a senator receive a per diem for meals? They have to eat whether they’re on the job or not!

    • Gabby in QC says:

      I forgot to add to this “They have to eat whether they’re on the job or not!” that the taxpayer should therefore not have to pick up the tab!

  37. Richco says:

    O/T – Ontario Politics – Liberal government shameless promotion trying to cling to power

  38. Richco says:

    some interesting numbers here re: B.C. election. Tell us the truth friends from B.C. because I’m not sure I buy these.

  39. ed says:

    A few thoughts (IMHO) about abortion: the majority of people are not ready to deal with it. The people are not yet at the stage where they can calmly discuss the pros and cons of the issue. It’s difficult to raise the issue when people are not receptive to the idea. There needs to be a much greater awareness and knowledge about the abortion issue among all Canadians. The pro-life groups have to intensify their message across the country. The souls and hearts of all Canadians must be touched with the truth about abortion, the facts about abortion, and the reality of abortion in today’s world. Only then can there be real change for the good. The Canadian government is wise in the way it’s handling the issue. Change takes time. People need to be ready for it. The controversy that has stirred is positive in that it has people talking, the more the better. The media and opposition can scream all they want. In a way, this helps the Canadian government. The issue of abortion is being raised all the while the government sits back and watches the show. Maybe their work is being done for them? Maybe the PM is sitting back and laughing? He maintains his position all the while the issue of abortion gets the attention it needs in order to move forward.

  40. Richco says:

    This should concern Conservatives north of the border too. It could happen here too. SNN also featured this tonight

  41. Richco says:

    So are we ready for tomorrow’s ink and airwaves from the usual suspects what will be filled with how the Labrador by-election, won by the Liberals is a harbinger of things to come and that Trudeau really MUST be the real deal?

    We’ve got to expect that that’s what’s coming.

  42. Richco says:

    Got a question you want to ask PM Harper? Just call the Prince of Pi

    • Richco says:

      Looks like Baby T. is trying to turn Question Period in to his own warped reality show.

      • Joanne says:

        My theory is that his QP performance is so bad that he needs this as a prop. Plus it is a data-mining technique for the Liberal Party.

        • Richco says:

          It’s bad for sure, at least it’s bad when he’s actually IN the house for Question Period.

          I think this is a stupid gimmick that will blow back on the Liberals.

          It could also be that on their own and between them all the Liberals can’t come up with anything on their own….not exactly leadership ready.

          Perhaps we could forward some stumpers ourselves?

  43. Bubba Brown says:

    The leader of the third place party is going to turn over his brief time to ask questions to Clifford from Canmore or perhaps Maurice from Kapuskasing.
    Or Margot from Victoria, perhaps Sally from Salt Spring?
    Can’t junior think up any questions on his own on his tour bus?
    I can see this backfiring big-time.
    Looks like a desperate attempt to gather IP addresses, friends of Just-in sorta thing.
    Expect rambling questions from Pierre Poutine from Seperation H Quebec.
    Naw just Juvenile, childish really, from the Prince of Positive.

  44. fh says:

    any questions from Canadians must be supported with proper names addresses and not be from fake FAKE made up imaginary people if JT hopes to be seen as a possible Prime Minister of Canada
    JT is playing in the big leagues now time to step up his game and put some meat on the plates of all ALL Canadians
    be careful JT and WK who you insult on the way up you never know where support can be found

  45. Liz J says:

    High on himself Justin of Pi will be busy patting himself on the back for the Liberal win in Labrador.

Comments are closed.