August 17, 2008
Suzanne A., on Perception of bias:
Hmmm…and this same group - Physicians for Life - only got wind of the draft policy from the College of Physicians and Surgeons entitled “Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code” the day before consultations closed. This is a policy that has the very real potential of restricting freedom of conscience on the part of physicians in the province. Seems like a strange coincidence to me.
________________________________
Karol, on Perception of bias:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080816.wmclachlin0816/BNStory/National/home
===Top judge didn’t vote in Morgentaler decision===
You have to read that article in order to realize the madness of it all; in response to “an anonymous complaint” to the Canadian Judicial Council about her conduct Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin claims that she didn’t vote in Morgentaler decision.
In the eyes of the Globe and Mail a complaint presented by 42 organisations representing over a million people constitute “an anonymous complaint”.
Actual vote by Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin is mentioned only in point seven of the complaint. Other issues relate to her decisions as a Chair of Order of Canada Nominating Committee.
Best part of the latest pronouncements was offered by Chief Justice Scott, head of the Canadian Judicial Council Disciplinary Committee, who said, “The bottom line is, if it’s not about misconduct, the complaint is going to be dismissed without asking the judge involved to comment.”
This magic distinction that CJC keeps on making between judicial decisions and judicial conduct is about to crush hitting reality of this complaint. Ultimate excuse that CJC keeps on using in order to refuse looking at stupid judicial decisions that people keep on complaining about is that such decisions could and should be appealed to a court of higher jurisdiction.
This so called “ultimate remedy” does not work in this particular case.
Since we are taking about Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin’s decisions as a Chair of Order of Canada Nominating Committee, the only appeal that anybody could ever make, as there is no higher court in this land, would ultimately send it back to the Supreme Court of Canada where Beverly McLachlin is acting as a Chief Justice. That being the case it is not possible to have her decisions, however stupid they appear, be overturned by anybody but herself.
If we are talking about checks and balances no matter how we slice it Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin has to step down in order to have this “anonymous complaint”, filed by 42 organisations acting on behalf of over million people living in Canada, properly resolved.
________________________________
Blazingcatfur, on Like what, one out of two implants?:
This will completely kill the Threesomes genre.
________________________________
Pat, on Perception of bias:
They are wrong about that. The ‘Constitution’ of the Order does not require any such things. I don’t know what ‘time honoured regulations’ these people are talking about.
________________________________
Frank Ruffolo, on Perception of bias:
The Mainstream Media of Canada as you call it in your blog about this very important issue has got a major optics problem of their own on their hands. Do they in fact continue to ignore this story as they have been as if it is not important when in fact it is of major importance and strikes right at the heart of what constitutes a democracy and makes a nation a democracy?
The Mainstream Media has got to decide if they continue to be nothing more than the shrill propaganda arm of this agenda or do they begin to act like the media should act in a true democracy and start looking at both sides of a serious issues like abortion which is impacting on an entire nation and seriously start joining the dots as they should be joining the dots.
________________________________
Michelle M, on Major problem with APA report:
Hmmm.. “Destructive Trends in Mental Health” is now on my must-read list. Another excellent book is one I read after graduating with my psych degree in 1986: it’s called “Psychology as Religion: the Cult of Self Worship”, by Paul Vitz, professor of psych at NYU.
________________________________
Lou Iacobelli, on I won't look, I won't discuss-I approve!:
I would assume that main problem for all those who support abortion, and
want to make it more palatable is that most of them have never experienced
or thought about what the word with its false ideology really means. It's
easy to accept the destruction of life in a piece of legislation or under
the umbrella of womens' rights to choose and be in charge of their bodies.
Wooly ideas should not be confused with sound thinking. For to actually look
at abortion in the face, one must in fact go down to ground zero, and here
the entire verbal edifice falls apart. Is anybody ever in total control of
one's body? If that were true, why would anybody ever be sick? This is how
language can change everything. What if we started to include gestation to
mark human growth so that one's age would begin at the moment of conception
and as a result we would call a fetus a baby of 2 or 3 or 6 months, just
like we refer to a child as being one, two and three years old? See how our
use of certain words to describe a process in a different manner can colour
our perspective. After all nobody in his right mind would allow, say, a
child of three months to be killed because the parents no longer wanted it.
However, this is done each day countless times the world over to children in
a mother's womb. Why are women free only if they use contraceptive devices
or are ready to have an abortion for an unwanted pregnancy? Surely there are
other more viable options. But do note how the language again can shape our
view. The pregnancy may be unwanted for the adults, but why kill an innocent
child who will never have a chance to live and to be free. The pro-abortion
position can be easily maintained when it's completely disconnected to
reality, to what happens to a baby when an abortion takes place. The whole
language of abortion and choice looks and sounds great up until you actually
begin to really think of its true meaning: imagine and see and hear the
spilling of innocent blood and the cries of innocent souls. You can do all
the verbal gymnastics
you want, but in the end killing a human life is killing a human life.
________________________________
Joanne Byfield, on Where are the women?:
Thanks for making the connection to cash and abortion clinics. When I read that Henry Morgentaler had been given standing to represent the women who go to his clinic in Frederiction, I was appalled. He has a pecuniary interest in getting paid by the province. Isn’t that what would normally be called a conflict of interest?
I have to assume that almost none of the women who go to him for abortions do so for medical reasons. If they had medical indications, they would have been approved by doctors and the province would have paid for hospital abortions. Why in the world would a court allow him to represent women in a case where he wants taxpayers (The province has no money itself. It takes it from citizens to pay Henry Morgentaler) to pick up the tab for what we Canadians like to call a “personal choice.” It cannot be both a “choice” and a medical necessity.
He has so many defenders, as we’ve seen in recent weeks, I find it surprising that there is no woman who will step up to bring this case forward. What is it about the judiciary in this country that they seem so besotted with this guy? And if the case proceeds to the Supreme Court of Canada, will the Chief Justice recuse herself from hearing the case since she was key to awarding him the Order of Canada? I’m joking of course. We are talking about abortion and the “special” rules apply.
________________________________
Loretta Westin, on No such thing as "safe sex":
Hmm. What is the reason for gratuitous negative comments about ‘radical right-wing Christians’?
I don’t consider myself ‘radical’ or right-wing, (although some close family members may disagree) although I am an ‘outwardly visible’ Christian in that anyone can tell from watching us that we are Christian. I also ’speak’ Christian. I support Christian beliefs in my reactions to the world around me and I unabashedly relate everything to my Christian ‘experience.
Is this ‘radical’ or ‘right-wing’? Some think so. They can’t stand to know that I am Christian, or hear my thoughts, embedded as they are in Christian philosophy and imagery. I personally feel that this reaction of some to me being ‘me’, is somewhat repressive and illiberal. Whatever.
I fail to see how dragging out the perpetual ‘red-herring’ of ‘radical right-wing Christians are scary’ is going to help anybody. Whether or not you have someone in particular in mind, and personally feel uncomfortable with their way of expressing themselves, or their expressed beliefs. It is not the variety of expression which hinders the ’cause’, but rather the allowance given to people who feel they are in a position to monitor others ‘expression’ of their beliefs.
________________________________
Frank Ruffolo, on Where are the women?:
Andrea the other flip side to your question is why not find I would imagine the many women who had abortions and now are totally against abortion because of the many negative side effects and personal anguish over the loss of their unborn baby child to abortion. I am quite certain their numbers must be legion if anyone cares to find out about these women that I speak of.
Then of course talk to the former Jane Roe of Roe versus Wade who is now totally opposed to abortion and the abortion movement even though she ended up being the poster girl for abortion and the abortion movement in the landmard Roe versus Wade decision that legalized abortion in America in 1973.
To conclude what does it profit a man to make vast sums of money from the abortion of unborn baby children in their mother’s womb.
________________________________
Frank Ruffolo, on America's lost daughters:
The slippery slope these feminist organizations have taken on their pro-abortion stance over the years has now entrapped them in a rather interesting cathch-22 where no matter what answer or stance they take or should take will in fact both show the complete error of their entire position on abortion and how truly inconsistent the culture of death really is.
It’s inconsistent because it makes no human sense and never will make any human sense.
This particular case about sex-selective abortion is proof positive and the perfect example of why in media terms abortion and the Culture of death and all it entails truly has no legs to speak of because it has no real future. Nada!