…Well, not always. What is immoral cannot always be illegal, nor should it be. Me in The Federalist on Jian Ghomeshi. My friend Rebecca Walberg, once PWPL blogger, would say this article falls into the “In Defence of Stigma” category.

There is a third way to consider this troubling trial. It is that Ghomeshi is simultaneously guilty in the culture by moral standards, yet not guilty in a court of law. This view encapsulates the idea that what is legal is not always moral and what is moral is not always legal. It should be perfectly feasible to stigmatize a behavior as wrong without taking it to court.

My latest at Cardus.ca.

Kind folks never needed it, and unkind folks won’t heed it. It’s a project that wanted to draw attention to vulnerabilities, but in so doing, actually isolated people more.

This journalist is in shock there’s a feminist prime-minister elect.

I’m in shock that she thinks of herself as a feminist.

A feminist is a strong woman, regardless of world view or ideological conviction. When you get your underoos into this big of a tangle for the lack of government dole outs, I think we can all agree you aren’t that. Her article should run on The Onion.

Did she actually say that? Yes! And more. Read and enjoy.

Catherine Porter, self-described “feminist” can’t do it–not without a lot of government money, hand holding and support. From a man, no less. 

 

Definitely is a lot you can’t say about abortion, because the topic is too political. I don’t know that the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” aren’t part of the problem when it comes to getting good information. Nonetheless, those are the labels we got for the political side of the debate. The thing is that I believe once you get more information, you are more likely to be pro-life. First just for yourself and then for others too.

This looks like it will be an interesting documentary. It’s called Hush.

Do you think this video should be censored? Just became aware that it had been. The creator of the video is suing.

Movie to Movement exists to discover, create, and promote works of art that highlight the dignity and sanctity of human life—and do so beautifully. We were thrilled to learn of “What Was Your Name”, a music video that did all that, which was burning up Youtube, thanks to the thousands of people who were moved by its message. We went to look for ourselves, and found that it was gone. Down the memory hole, thanks to arbitrary policies of content censorship in place at Youtube. This wasn’t the first time that Youtube has done something like this, and it won’t be the last, but we’re proud to be helping the makers of “What Was Your Name”, evade the censors. That’s why we’re helping to promote the film on Vimeo, at iTunes, and on the artist Joyce Bartholomew’s website. Go check it out. You’ll see why we want you to share it—and why some people don’t. And we publicly support the makers of “What Was Your Name”, in their lawsuit against Google, demanding that their video be restored and Youtube’s policies changed.

The following is a press release I got from NCLN, re-printed in full. Consider supporting their case if you can.

_____

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

RYERSON PRO-LIFE STUDENTS PREPARE LAWSUIT AGAINST STUDENT UNION

JUNE 9, 2015. TORONTO, ON—On February 23rd, the Ryerson Student Union (RSU) Board of Directors unanimously voted that Students for Life at Ryerson (“SFLR”), a pro-life club at Ryerson University, would not be allowed to form a pro-life club under RSU. This vote marked the last step in an appeal process that began in the fall semester after SFLR was rejected by the Student Groups Committee on the basis that the RSU, “opposes…groups, meetings, or events that promote misogynist views towards woman [sic] and ideologies that promote gender inequity, challenges women’s right [sic] to bodily autonomy, or justifies [sic] sexual assault”.

“Our club stands for human rights for all human beings, including those at the earliest stages of life. We also want to support pregnant students on campus who want alternatives to abortion,” states Carter Grant, a second year business major and Vice-President of SFLR.

Pro-life students at Ryerson were first denied club status back in 2003.  Now students are preparing to take the decision to court to assert their right to be treated fairly by their student union, and to not be discriminated against on the basis of their pro-life viewpoint.

The students’ case has been taken on by Charter Defence, a new pro-bono legal defence organization.  It has retained experienced constitutional lawyer Carol Crosson to defend the students.  Ms. Crosson says that, “pro-life students have been denied rights on campuses long enough.  This is the time to end this battle and enshrine students rights on campus.”

However, there is one thing stopping these students.  Ms. Crosson explains, “sadly, standing up for your rights often requires money. Charter Defence is graciously covering legal costs, but during the trial or afterwards costs may be awarded against the students.”

Nicholas McLeod, who sued Carleton University on a similar conflict about student rights, states that “we were forced to give up continuing our fight because we had to pay costs to continue.  We were not able to and were forced to give up.  I want these students to succeed.”

“The students need to raise $20,000 by the middle of July to be able to initiate this case”, Ms Crosson says.  “If these students win, it means a win for all pro-lifers. It means that other students in ON will have a legal leg to stand on when their universities and student unions treat them unfairly. It means that bureaucrats in other arenas will take notice that pro-lifers are not easy prey.  Let’s help these students win.”

Donations are processed through Charter Defence.  Please see donation information on their website, charterdefence.com.

Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards wants to “talk, really talk” about abortion.

Talking about abortion is the apparent wish of one Cecile Richards, CEO of Planned Parenthood. Great idea. Here’s another pro-lifer who agrees.

Richards is calling us to “talk – really talk – about abortion. America has an urgent need for authentic public dialogue on abortion.” Canada too.

Here’s the problem. Pro-choicers may say they want to talk about abortion, but then they are upset when the authentic talk goes sour.

It took me all of about 10 seconds to find a mournful “let’s talk about abortion” story. I googled “I had an abortion,” which is usually the hallmark of the pro-choice world on the internet. These are the people who want to share their abortions because they are not ashamed and because they want to raise consciousness about how abortion is a difficult, but simultaneously empowering, choice. The very first story I clicked on ends on this (sarcasm alert) tremendously uplifting note:

I was too scared to tell him he already hates me i couldn’t do it and so i aborted. I couldn’t raise a baby by myself. Its been over a month since my abortion and i would give anything to have my baby back.

I feel so guilty i took away my baby and his. He hasn’t a clue, part of me thinks i should tell him but whats it going to achieve now? My baby is gone and i cant get him/her back and that kills me.

I want my baby back.

Where were we? Oh yes, at Cecile Richard’s desire to talk about abortion. The sidebar for that same website includes the headline “My world is crashing down,” (surely a euphemism for something positive?!) and “I think of them. Always.” (Probably a pleasant reverie.)

There’s one called “The Right Choice“–so I scrolled through that one thinking it would be the tale of empowerment Cecile is looking for. As it turns out, the story includes crying, crying some more, tears, some more crying, confusion and a conclusion that includes missing the baby, anger at the situation and yes, you guessed it, even more crying.

Richards can say she wants to talk, but she doesn’t really.  Because the web site above is what she is going to get a lot of, unless she scripts it, in which case, we aren’t talking–really talking–about abortion.

There’s a reason why there is a stranglehold on free speech regarding abortion, and it serves the pro-choice world very nicely indeed.

That said, hear hear, Cecile Richards, I agree. Let’s talk about abortion. Really talk. Call anytime. I’m available. The whole pro-life community is right here, eagerly waiting to talk about abortion. We’ve been waiting a while, but better late than never.

I listened to this program on CBC not too long ago. It’s Chris Turner talking about how to be a Green Party candidate in Calgary. I appreciated his remarks.

Activists in particular tend to come guns a blazing, and it’s rare that others share the passion. That can be the first problem.

Pro-life activists tend to want to speak truth but we can be bad at listening. And we can be bad at meeting people where they are at. (Listening and meeting people where they are at is not the same thing as compromising on important values, she reminds herself.)

In any event, finding consensus in a conversation is a good starting point, whether you are an environmentalist in Calgary discussing the oil sands or a pro-lifer at a downtown Toronto dinner party.