This is a guest post from someone who is obviously distressed by the news this morning that a BC teacher was fired for expressing the personal opinion that he doesn’t agree with abortion. Expressing this view was intended to highlight how our personal morality may differ from the law–a concept, needless to say, with which all pro-lifers are intimately familiar. Now he doesn’t have a job anymore. If someone were pro-choice and fired under similar circumstances I would stand up for them. I’m still hoping a major pro-choice spokesperson would come out and say this is obscene.

Anyway, here’s the anonymous guest post now:

By 6 am this morning, I had been emailed this story twice: B.C. teacher fired for having the wrong opinion by Christie Blatchford. Her piece tells a sickening story of how a private school teacher was fired for noting during a grade 12 law class that he was opposed to abortion.

“In other words, he said, in a pluralistic democracy, there’s often “a difference between people’s private morality and the law.

“I find abortion to be wrong,” he said, as another illustration of this gap, “but the law is often different from our personal opinions.”

That was it, the teacher said. “It was just a quick exemplar, nothing more. And we moved on.”

A little later, the class had a five-minute break, and when it resumed, several students didn’t return, among them a popular young woman who had gone to an administrator to complain that what the teacher said had “triggered” her such that she felt “unsafe” and that, in any case, he had no right to an opinion on the subject of abortion because he was a man.

The school, for the record, is a witheringly progressive one.”

The administrators should reconsider how they do their jobs, and the parents should have a hard look at how they are parenting their daughter. I know that’s a loaded statement, but walk with me through this.

First, the student in question is likely 16 or 17 years old. She is being taught, that even at her age, she needs to be sheltered from other people’s opinions. She is going to be voting soon. She could join the military and be on the front lines. And her school and parents are reinforcing this ridiculous notion. Their delicate snowflake can’t handle differences of opinion. How the heck are they preparing her for the real world?

Further, she is being taught that if her feelings are hurt, all she has to do is run to some authority figure and have the other person humiliated. Fired. Have their opinion corrected so it lines up with hers. You know what? That’s awfully paternalistic and condescending. I don’t know why this didn’t occur to the daughter, the administrator, or the parents. Is this truly the progressive, empowering, feminist environment they want for her daughter?

Imagined scenario:

– Mr./Mrs. Administrator, I don’t feel safe. My teacher said he had a different opinion than mine on abortion.

– (Figurative pat on the head.) There, there, it’s okay. I’m here for you. We’ll require him to apologize to you in front of his peers and his students, humiliating him, undermining his authority in the classroom and under threat of losing his job. Will that make you feel safe? Yes? Oh good. That’s what we want.

Seriously?

If my kids attended this school, I’d pull them out, tell every parent and donor I know what happened and find a school for my kids that offered opportunities for them to grow into responsible, engaged and productive adults. I want my kids to become adults who cannot only survive in the real world, but thrive. In the real world. Where a whole lot of people will disagree with them. And where they have a realistic understanding of what is safe and unsafe.

Alternate universe scenario: The student explains her feelings to the administrator. The administrator hears her out. Asks thoughtful questions. Ascertains whether or not there is any threat to the student and if the teacher acted improperly. Asks the teacher for his perspective, obviously without the student present.

Calls the student back in and explains that the teacher simply has a different opinion on this matter. Explains that their school, which so values diversity, welcomes people with different opinions to share them in respectful manners. Did she perhaps want to have a chat with the teacher and the administrator about the issue? Maybe she could learn a little bit about the teacher’s perspective and she could share her own? Perhaps they could go over ways that one could positively act on their beliefs? Have discussions and debates? Join and support charities that advance causes x, y, z?

I can’t believe her parents are paying $30,000 a year for her daughter to be taught her expectations and the school’s reaction is normal. Even appropriate. What a waste.

Stock photography doesn’t always come through for me, but let’s just say this is a snowflake social justice warrior high school student, who can’t cope with the marketplace of ideas.

Save

Save

Save

Folks, this is a worthy cause. The Government of Ontario is collecting abortion statistics and then denying its citizens reasonable access to that information. If they collect abortion statistics in the aggregate, not violating anyone’s privacy, that is and must remain public information. Today, the Ontario government has decided it will keep that information secret. I’m not quite clear on why. After all, you can be entirely pro-choice and still want to know whether the abortion rate is going up or down, or know whether more teenage mothers/advanced age mothers/what have you are having abortions. This is basic research of broader interest. More information here and below. NB: I had a eureka moment the other day with regards to charitable giving. I used to think I give something substantial or not at all. But guess what? ten dollars helps–and that is two lattés. And that’s the very nature of crowd funding. Of course, you may choose to give a big amount too, I’m sure Pat Maloney wouldn’t say no. But it’s helpful to know I can show support with a small donation and not break the bank.

In January, 2012, the Ontario government quietly slipped in an amendment to the provincial Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) whereby all information related to abortion is no longer accessible through freedom of Information requests.

Section 65(5.7) reads: “This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services.”

Yet one of the FIPPA’s purposes is to guarantee access to government information to maintain transparency and accountability. Yet this addition undermines this purpose and was never debated in the Legislature.

I am a pro-life blogger and I ran up against this roadblock in January 2014. When my request for statistical information was denied (under the new provision) Iappealed the decision on my own, but lost.

I then retained a lawyer on a pro bono basis and appealed again. After a third appeal, I finally received the information. The government released this information to me “outside of the FIPPA process” mere days before my hearing in court. But the bad law remains on the books.

Together with ARPA Canada, I am now challenging the law itself as unconstitutional. We have filed a notice of application asking the Ontario Superior Court to strike down section 65(5.7) of Ontario’s FIPPA. Freedom of Information is guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, falling under the freedom of expression protection. A successful Charter challenge would produce the information we are looking for, would require the Ontario legislature to amend the legislation, and would expose the extremism of the Ontario government in banning all information, including basic statistical information, from the citizens of Ontario in order to hide the injustice of abortion.

On the April 27th edition of Lighthouse News, ARPA featured an interview with myself and André Schutten about the history of this file, and some of the particulars of the case. You can hear that interview here:
https://arpacanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/fippa-interview-only.mp3

See the PDFs and links below for more details:
Notice of Application – ARPA FIPPA
FAQs on FIPPA
http://www.weneedalaw.ca/blog/521-censorship-of-government-policy-and-spending-needs-to-stop
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2016/01/charter-challenge-for-hiding-abortion.html

This go-fund-me campaign will help me raise funds to pay for my legal fees related to this challenge. We believe that open, transparent, and accountable government is crucial for a healthy democracy.

Pat Maloney, the Ottawa resident who is launching this Charter challenge with the help of the Association for Reform Political Action. I note she is a pro-life AND a woman. Fancy that.

…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.