ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for Canada

The State of Freedom in Canada

by 2 Comments

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” – John G. Diefenbaker

This quote was shared in one of my law classes a few weeks ago. I can only imagine the way John Diefenbaker felt when he wrote those words. Perhaps he was worried about the state of his country, and therefore all the more passionate about passing the Canadian Bill of Rights. Perhaps he was proud of the nation he helped govern. As I read these words, I sense a mixture of pride and passion, a combination of satisfaction at the state of Canada at the time and of determination to ensure that Canada remained founded in such freedom.

I wonder what Prime Minister Diefenbaker would think of our nation now.

I am concerned: concerned for our nation and concerned for the security of the lofty ideal we call freedom. Maybe I am too cynical for my own good. But freedom, I am discovering, is an endangered species. Freedom is an invaluable ideal that has been choked by progressives, chastised by political correctness, and condemned by radical ideologies.

I am afraid that John Diefenbaker’s words are no longer as true as they once were. If he were to speak these words today, I fear that they would need the following updates:

“I am a Canadian. I am free to speak without fear, unless my university dislikes what I say. I am free to worship in my own way, unless my beliefs offend someone – then I will be denied the ability to care for children and denied the ability to associate with like-minded individuals. I am free to stand for what I think right, unless I am a pro-life person who gets too close to an abortion clinic. I am free to oppose what I believe wrong, unless I am a pro-life physician who refuses to provide abortion, birth control, or euthanasia & assisted suicide. I am free to choose those who shall govern my country, unless I am a pro-life person trying to run in politics or trying to access state-run employment subsidization programs. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind personkind (but only for those who agree with state-sanctioned secularism and who bow to government ideological coercion on issues like abortion).”

Freedom, you see, is not what it used to be.

There is hope, of course. Students are rallying, lawyers are fighting back, and courageous everyday Canadians are refusing to let liberty be wrenched from their hands. Freedom may be endangered, but it is not extinct.

We must, however, remain vigilant. We must remain alert and attentive, refusing to let distractions destroy our determination.

To those of you who do not care, or to those of you who doubt the severity of the situation, I challenge you to read the words of Martin Neimöller. He knew a thing or two about the dangers of complacency and apathy. You would be wise not to make them your bedfellows mistresses  partners.

To those of you who fear, like I do, for the state of freedom in Canada, I encourage you to pray, to fight, to act, to speak, to stand, to remain, and to pray some more. And perhaps, when you hear the national anthem play, do what I do and relish being able to sing that one line just a little bit louder.

May God truly keep our land glorious and free.

Deep rooted mentalities

by 3 Comments

Many don’t believe that over 60% of abortions performed in Canada or the US involve coercion to some degree (usually by a mate or parent). That’s a conservative figure. While some claim having a ‘choice’ is an essential part of a civilized country, it is evident that the decision is not purely between a woman and her doctor. As part of daily life in this country, girl gets pregnant, and boy does everything he can to manipulate her to have an abortion. The only ones ignoring this reality are those who place the right to ‘choose’ above the welfare of women.

Why would any Canadian woman tolerate being coerced into such a decision? Aren’t we all strong, independent, assertive, and outspoken? I catch wind of atrocities like this, befalling women in countries like Afghanistan, and the problem is blamed on cultural mentality.

The central reason is despairingly simple: Women’s lives are not valued, and even women themselves perceive their suffering as being unavoidable.

Not only in Afghanistan do oppressive mentalities plague women. In this country, a girl or woman discovering she is unexpectedly pregnant knows instantly that actually choosing whether to carry through or terminate the pregnancy is unavoidable. If she herself wants to keep her baby, she is fully aware that someone else will, at the very least, encourage her to look at her ‘options.’ In carrying through the pregnancy, the baby then becomes her ‘choice.’

I’m doubtful that this is what the pro-choice movement set out to achieve. Unlikely that, from its inception, part of its mission statement was: “…so that every woman getting unexpectedly pregnant would feel some degree of pressure to have an abortion.”

So, just like in Afghanistan:

Questioning culture is, of course, a politically incorrect approach. But we must refuse to bow before the altar of tolerance when it comes to what is truly unacceptable, wherever it occurs.

Unborn victim didn’t exist

by Leave a Comment

My grandson was murdered, says Mary Talbot in today’s Ottawa Citizen.

Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada offers up a “there, there, Mary.”

While we deeply sympathize with them and understand their wish, it must be recognized that victims of violence are not those who should be making decisions about justice in a democratic society. Appropriate laws and penalties must be determined by impartial parties who do not allow emotion or personal bias to colour their decisions…

I think it’s fair to say this: Arthur says she sympathizes with Talbot, and somewhere, somehow, that may be true. But Arthur is also the author of Fetus Focus Fallacy and where Talbot knows she had a grandson, Arthur thinks she had a fetus, and furthermore, that we ought not to focus on that. 

As for “impartial parties informing the laws,” I’ll assume that means we’ll be rescinding the Morgentaler decision. And that he, and all pro-abortion groups, will be giving up their fight in New Brunswick in short order.

The bottom line: Arthur sees only one victim here and can’t really sympathise with Mary Talbot at all, as a result. And that would be due to her own lack of impartiality.

Meta