David Little hasn’t paid income tax since 1999 because he doesn’t want his money, even in part, going to pay for abortions. This is, of course, breaking the law.
Does this mean he’ll get an Order of Canada in a couple of decades?
(Maybe. But not before he goes to jail, or pays a fine, or whatever the outcome will be.)
by 
Update from a witness in the appeal trial of April 29, 2009; When you look at the arguments in the case, it is clear you have not even understood what Mr. David Little is fighting. Murder is not allowed and induced Abortion is just that.
Catholic Catechism States:
2242. The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Mt 22:21 “We must obey God rather than men” Acts 5:29
The things that are God’s in this case are the children. The government or state has no right to kill children even if a women’s emotions are at stake. He is choosing to obey God instead of Revenue Canada.
If you want to understand his case I would encourage you to read his case history on his website http://www.morecanada.info or http://www.tinyurl.com/d3l8h9
Globe and Mail reporting recently a Toronto muslim woman won her claim under section 2a of the Charter of Rights to be allowed to wear a burka to testify in court. The courts are national in their practises and she won based on a Sincerely held religious belief. So it is possible the court will overturn Mr. Little’s conviction.
The crown reminded the 3 judges that if Mr. Little were to win the impact across the nation would be devastating and emphasized this point. However, they avoided the legal error the first judge in the case committed. Section 2a has a formula that is require to determine if a right has been violated. The first trial judge did not follow it. Hence the reason for the appeals and quite frankly a high possibility to winning his case.
The crown was there to defend on legal grounds why the first judge did not err. They resorted to suggesting the court rule on non-legal arguments. How ironic.