ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for Order of Canada

What are you doing tomorrow?

by Leave a Comment

Why, you’re watching Question Period at noon, and then at five pm (EST) you are listening to 580 CFRA. On Question Period, Rod Bruinooge, MP for Winnipeg South, will debate the Morgentaler award with Martha Hall-Findlay, and in the evening, Brigitte and I will discuss the whole business on the Gerry Cammy show.

Between those two shows, however, you’ll have some time–so you can join the new Facebook group against this award, you can contact your new friends in the Governor General’s office, your Member of Parliament, people on the committee–to politely and continually express your concern over the country’s protocol being broken in order that he might receive a pet present from our Chief Justice. 4MyCanada has done a wonderful job of compiling contact info. You could call a new person every day! Or everyone, every day. Your call (no pun intended).

Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice: This award was given outside of normal protocol. That’s not how we do business. If you are pro-choice ask yourself if you celebrate abortion: because that’s what this award is all about.

One person wrote into this site saying the award makes him feel bad, but he felt still worse for having done nothing on the issue to this point. That’s true of many of us, myself included. Every day is a new day, though, and we can make changes, by acting now.

Reflect and ponder

by Leave a Comment

Read in this morning’s Ottawa Citizen in the letters section (sorry, I couldn’t find the web version of the full letter):

Under no circumstances should sex lead to a life sentence.

I daresay, this letter-writer has learned her pro-choice lesson well. Sex? Leading to pregnancy? No way! But on a lighter note, her statement reminded me of a joke, you know, the one about life being a sexually transmitted condition leading to death?

Among other letters, we also read the testimony of a woman who found herself in the leftover 1% for whom the pill is not “efficient” and who had an abortion as a result. She writes: “But birth control does fail some women who are then faced with unplanned pregnancies that, for various reasons, they cannot continue.” So much for birth control making abortion rare. Sex shouldn’t lead to babies and we need abortion because we have relatively effective birth control, not in spite of it.

Interesting.

Didn’t agree with much

by Leave a Comment

But, within this opinion piece, I did agree with the ending sentiment:

The Order of Canada has over 3,000 living members… Let’s see whether any of these other accomplished individuals care more about what we’re endlessly told is the “taking of human life” than they do about that adorable little metal snowflake in the drawer.

Easy for me or anyone else to say, though, especially when we don’t actually have a medal. Mind you, I’m quite certain I know what I’d do…

A man always finds a reason

by Leave a Comment

My French-Canadian grandfather was always a great resource for the best figures of speech. One of my favorites is “Un homme trouve toujours une raison pour tuer son chien.” (A man always finds a reason to kill his dog.)

In other words, if you want someone hanged, you’ll find something to accuse them of, no matter what.

It just so happens those sought after accusations were a matter of public record in the case of Father Lucien Larré. Though he was awarded the Order of Canada for succeeding “beyond measure in restoring the lost to their rightful place in society,” many seem to be focused on the fact that he has some questionable moments in his past.

Larre said any controversy in his past bears little relation to Morgentaler’s fight for abortion rights.

Two things:

First, Father Larré is fully aware of his own past. Yet he dared to have a light shone on him by being (what I hope will be) the first of many to send back his Order of Canada medal. An assault charge dating back over 30 years ago could have been enough to paralyze him from protesting as he did. We hear one motivational speaker after another tell us not to let our less than perfect pasts get in our way, yet as soon as we see someone put that into practice, as Father Larré has done, we hang him.

Second, I’m not in any way defending Father Larré’s past mishaps. I don’t think anyone needs to, nor do I think we need to hold them up on a scale next to the actions of anyone else. Someone awarded the Order of Canada should be held to a higher standard, but purely on the basis of whether they have left Canada in a better state than they found it. This is precisely why Morgentaler’s award is so controversial. It is absolutely debatable that he’s done any good for Canada. The award makes it out that abortion on demand is a good thing; it assumes the debate is closed. Pish-posh! There is hardly any sort of national consensus to that effect.

As more members of the Order have the courage to send back their medals in protest of the Morgentaler fiasco, they also should expect to have their less that spotless pasts put on display. A word to all you honourable members, inducted by unanimous decision of the committee: Please don’t let any of that stop you.

______________________________

Brigitte is rolling her eyes all the way to her shoulder blades:

Larre was awarded the Order of Canada in 1983 for founding the Bosco Homes for emotionally disturbed and addicted adolescents. He was later convicted of assault and administering a noxious substance, but pardoned for those crimes in 1997. [emphasis added]

He said the assault charge stemmed from an incident in 1974, when he slapped a 19-year-old woman trying to have an affair with a 14-year-old boy under his care. The other change came from an incident when he and a nurse told three teenagers to consume various unidentified vitamins, sugar pills and placebos in an effort to teach them about drugs.

Personally, if an adult was trying to mess with a minor in my care, you bet I’d do something about it. Not sure what to think of the second affair, about the pills, but hey. I have very little experience dealing with “emotionally disturbed and addicted adolescents” so I hesitate to second-guess. In any case, calling Father Larré a “child abuser”, as I am told some pro-choicers are doing, is way over the top.  

Demonstration July 9

by Leave a Comment

“Campaign Life Coalition is organizing a demonstration for concerned Canadian citizens to protest the awarding of the Order of Canada to abortionist Henry Morgentaler and to seek its revocation.

WHERE: Rideau Hall – official residence of the Governor General of Canada

WHEN: Wednesday July 9, 2008 from noon to 2:00pm.

CONTACT: Paul Lauzon [email protected] 613-729-0379″

________________________________

Update: It appears the demonstration starts at noon, not 11:00 am as previously mentioned here. Thanks to Cynthia for pointing it out.

If you wear the pin, send it back

by Leave a Comment

 

What kind of honour could a person of goodwill possibly have in being a member of the Order of Canada knowing that rules were broken to give it? (Incidentally, this is no small point. Who is proud of “winning” a game when they changed the rules? “Checkmate!–I have your rook.”)

This is a great piece. If you wear the pin, send it back.

My favourite line:

The point here is that the real reason for supporting his award isn’t that he’s controversial, it’s that he’s an abortionist. And it’s no excuse for pushing it through that he’s unwell and it cannot be given posthumously. If there is no afterlife there’s little point rushing to collect attractive coffin decorations and if there is, that little white lapel pin will not help him face his accusers on the other side.

I’ll say.

________________________________

Tanya was particularly grabbed by this part: 

Canada is full of “controversial figures” like, say, Don Cherry. But the people who dislike him think he’s a blowhard, not a mass murderer.

Mailing back his medal

by Leave a Comment

Is this the first of many?

Lucien Larre, a Coquitlam priest who received the Order of Canada in 1983 for his work with emotionally disturbed and addicted youth, put the award in the mail Wednesday in an envelope addressed to Governor-General Michaelle Jean.

“I wanted to protest to the committee, because when we have the Order of Canada, it has to be given to people that most Canadians can admire and look up to,” Larre said, explaining that many including himself view abortion as murder.

A callous sort of Canada

by Leave a Comment

Amidst all the talk of a victory for women’s rights, some writers get it right:

I get the feeling Dr. Morgentaler has a selective respect for the rights of others. The rights of women who agree with his views are paramount. The rights of unborn children are non-existent. The beliefs of women who disagree with him are to be dismissed; any religion which advocates against his views is to be disregarded; the qualms of those Canadians appalled at the carnage that has flowed from his work are to be ignored. I suspect -— and I’m just guessing -— that what’s important to Dr. Morgentaler is his beliefs alone. Others’ beliefs are inconsequential. Maybe this callousness is what lets him so easily take life away from so many.

This is my point: It is a callous sort of Canada that offers abortion first. It is callous to make that choice easy. It de facto denies the rest of us the ability to help. It is unfair to tell a woman in her early twenties (stats tell us this is when most of these abortions occur) that she’ll be a better mom later on “when she’s ready” only to find there is no later on. Women’s rights do not involve the forfeiture of that which makes us women.

Show me an abortionist and I’ll show you a misogynist.

Almost back to normal

by Leave a Comment

Yesterday I did four media interviews. From my perspective, two were good, one neutral, one terrible. The terrible one I have yet to see (CTV Newsnet)–I can’t find it, plus there’s the fact that I don’t want to. I was too easily annoyed (on air with an abortionist’s wife). I spoke over her. I don’t think (can’t recall) I made any meaningful points. And the moderator was happy to let my opponent blab on, euphemism after euphemism rolling off her tongue. I tried to make myself feel better last night by buying food I like for dinner: sushi and Fudgesicles. But then you try sleeping on a stomach of sushi and Fudgesicles. Not good.

I failed to realize in that discussion that six minutes shared on air with a woman who works in an abortion clinic cannot change world views. She said that women cannot always control their reproductive systems (true enough) so they will always need abortions, or something to that effect. This in essence is “abortion as birth control”–not an argument even pro-choicers tend to support, preferring instead the “safe, legal and rare” thing. Instead of pointing that out–I spoke of personal experience. Again, not good.

Then again, so did she. She told everyone she is an immigrant to this country as if that were a meaningful point. (It’s not, and I’m allowed to say that, given my own family’s immigrant status.)  

Anyway, I’m told “anything worth doing is worth doing badly.” It is worth it to stand up and say life is not disposable. I am still sorry that I did it badly.

This article, incidentally, made me feel better, especially this part:

Future generations may well condemn our society’s countenance of abortion in the same way we look back in wonder and revulsion at those who defended slavery. Men such as William Wilberforce and Abraham Lincoln are rightly revered today for their opposition to that peculiar institution — but we must recall that they were outnumbered and reviled in their time. Indeed, both men were stretched to the limit of their political skills, and their lives, to obtain justice. The nobility of their cause, though clear to us, was nowhere near apparent to their contemporaries. Then, as now, the most dreadful things can become convention if enough folks go along.

Many men and women go to their graves outnumbered and reviled by their contemporaries for any number of causes. I’m just going to have to learn to enjoy revulsion a little bit more. (Hey–maybe that involves more sushi and Fudgesicles. See how I’ve brought this meandering post full circle now.)

__________________________

Brigitte really doesn’t get sushi and Fudgesicles (who needs fish when you’ve got chocolate?), and also why Andrea feels so bad about the interview. Remember, Andrea: There are no ways to make abortion sound like a good idea so you’re already way ahead even before you open your mouth.

____________________________

Andrea adds: A friendly reader found the link for me. And for those concerned about my dietary choices, it was vegetarian sushi. Just thought I’d add that. 

____________________________

Tanya’s analysis: I’m from Quebec, so my definition of speaking over someone is completely different. The demure interruptions you were offering one another were not an issue in my eyes.

 

This is what I did notice. Ms. Corsillo was speaking in pro-choice catch phrases of old, and they rambled out of her uncontrollably. You, Andrea, spoke in the now. 

 

But that was the underlying tone of the interview, wasn’t it? Did you notice her scoff when you said, “I remember when I was a young person.” (Check it out, 5:10 into the interview.) Her tone was generally condescending. To her, you still are a young person whose belly button hasn’t quite dried up yet.

 

Is this how Ms. Corsillo views any woman in her 20’s or 30’s? What does that say about the tone and tactic she likely employs when counseling individual women about abortion? “You poor thing, you have your whole life ahead of you, and you have no idea what a responsibility this is. It would be a shame for you to become a mother now. When you’re older, and you’re ready, that’s when you should have a child.” That’s gentle manipulation, is what that is.

 

______________________________

Véronique wonders what the point of vegetarian sushi is? Andrea, you might not have reached your high standards but you did very well. Keep up the good work: one in four is not bad at all, especially on such a busy day.

______________________________

Andrea again: Folks, there’s been a most egregious error in this exchange. “Fudgsicle” is the proper spelling. Not “Fudgesicle.” I say this as a woman who is truly “in the know” and the “now” as it were. (I’m, er, looking at the box as I type this.)

 
 
 

 

When truth bites the dust, nobody wins

by Leave a Comment

Writing something brilliant about Morgentaler’s nomination to the Order of Canada is difficult at this point, not only because the deed is done and trying to talk anybody out of it is futile, but also because the urge to scream injustice at the top of my lungs while setting my hair on fire hasn’t quite subsided. But my posting record has been rather lackluster since the end of the school year and if anything is worth dealing with the consequences of having five unattended children roaming about the house while I write, this must be it.

What I find so unjust about Morgentaler’s nomination is, once again, the absence of intelligent debate — as opposed to rhetoric, slogans and name-calling — surrounding matters of abortion. While pro-life advocates are not blameless in that matter, I believe that the failure to engage in intelligent debate rests more heavily on the shoulders of pro-abortion advocates, as the underhanded manner in which the Morgentaler nomination was managed shows. I am offended by the nomination, but I am more deeply offended that the process was planned to avoid any meaningful contribution from pro-life advocates. “We know what they think, we’ve made our decision, what’s the point in involving them?” Abortion is controversial but what is truly divisive is the lumping of all opposing opinions as “those we don’t want to hear.” Still, it takes two to be divided and I can’t say with certitude that, had the cultural momentum been in our favour, we wouldn’t have been guilty of the same offense. Now, here’s some food for thought.

Nowhere has the failure to engage in meaningful debate been more aptly illustrated than by Morgentaler himself in the wake of his nomination. This article reads like an assignment in “spot the falsehoods, rhetoric and name-calling.” Come on! Calling people anti-choice or anti-life doesn’t help anything. We are no more anti-choice than pro-choice are anti-life. We just believe that the choice to end a pregnancy is not a legitimate one, just like the choice to kill someone in revenge or the choice to kidnap a child or the choice to use another person for sexual gratification. Similarly, all pro-choice advocates have not had an abortion nor do they think that everybody should have one (unless they are population control zealots but that’s another story). The Catholic Church is not opposed to women’s rights. It just happens to think that women’s rights are not advanced by abortion because abortion fundamentally undermines women’s dignity. You might disagree but at least admit that there is something to talk about here. In the same vein, all pro-lifers are not Catholics nor will changing the Pope end opposition to abortion. I think that what disappointed me (almost) as much as seeing Morgentaler nominated was the pettiness and small-mindedness of the man himself. I can’t even look up to him as an intelligent contributor to the debate. He really debases the institution of the Order of Canada, not so much because of his expected position on abortion but because of his unwillingness (or inability) to engage meaningfully in a debate about what matters so much to him.

Meta