Road Warrior of the Week

Heroes and Good Samaritans

Sun Media’s Bonokoski got it All Wrong on MPs’ Call for Homicide Investigation

 No Responses »
Feb 232013
 

by Faye Sonier (LifeSiteNews.com) – In Saturday’s Bushwhackers embarrass PM piece, Sun Media’s National Editorial Writer Mark Bonokoski proves that you don’t need facts to write an opinion article.

He labels three Members of Parliament, Maurice Vellacott, Leon Benoit and Wladyslaw Lizon “obviously stupid bushwhackers” for having asked the RCMP to investigate late-term abortions as homicides. Had they done so, I would have been the first to tell them that their efforts were a waste of time given the state of the law in Canada. Abortion is legal through all nine months of pregnancy in our fair country.

But that’s not what they did. The MPs asked the RCMP to investigate 491 cases of possible homicide. Between 2000 and 2009, 491 newborns survived attempted abortions and subsequently died after birth. We don’t know how they died, but they did. According to the Criminal Code, the same one Bonokoski alludes to reading, when human beings are born they are considered human beings in law. And when human beings are killed or neglected to death, we expect the police to investigate.

The MPs didn’t hide their motives or the language of their request. They clearly set out both in the letter they sent the RCMP, which was posted on Mr.  Vellacott’s website and recirculated widely. All Bonokoski had to do was read it.

Bonokoski then attempts to summarize the decision by which Supreme Court of Canada decriminalized abortion. Unfortunately, it appears as though he didn’t read that either.   The Court said the existing abortion legislation was unconstitutional, and Parliament was free to pass abortion legislation that would be. They even offered suggestions as to language for constitutionally acceptable legislation. Parliament just hasn’t done so.  There is, in fact, no constitutional right to abort your child in Canada. Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada even admits to that.

Lastly, he argued that since he doesn’t have a uterus, he cannot form an opinion on abortion and that this position isn’t a cop-out, but a fact. He’s wrong. It’s a total cop-out.

I’m not a woman who has suffered abuse, but I have an opinion on domestic abuse. I’m not a man, but I have an opinion on funding for prostate cancer research. I’m not a slave, but I have an opinion on human trafficking.  I’m not a soldier or live in a war zone, but I have an opinion on Canadian military engagement. I’m not an Aboriginal person, but I have an opinion on the Idle No More movement.

Perhaps he believes that he must have first-hand knowledge of every human experience before he can form an opinion, but this seems like an odd, if not impossible, position for a national media editor to take.  And I can assure him that the rest of the society doesn’t function that way.  We form opinions and vote accordingly, even though we haven’t walked a mile in every Canadian’s shoes.

Bonokoski, a senior media personality, formed and shared outrageous opinions on the actions of three MPs and Canadian abortion law seemingly without having read the MPs’ request to the RCMP, the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code or the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision on abortion. Who says you need to do research and rely on facts to write an opinion piece?

Faye Sonier is Legal Counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. She blogs at ActivateCFPL.

Multiple Homicides That Need to be Investigated

 No Responses »
Feb 032013
 

HOUSE OF COMMONS
CANADA
Maurice Vellacott, MP
Saskatoon-Wanuskewin

January 23, 2013

RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson

RCMP National Headquarters
Headquarters Building
73 Leikin Drive
Ottawa, ON K1A 0R2

Dear Commissioner Paulson,

Recent public reports have revealed the possibility of numerous breaches of the Criminal Code – to be specific, homicides – in Canada which need to be investigated.

These killings appear to have started out as attempted abortions, but the babies were born alive. At the blog, Run With Life, you will learn: “From 2000 to 2009 in Canada, there were 491 abortions, of 20 weeks gestation and greater, that resulted in live births. This means that the aborted child died after it was born. These abortions are coded as P96.4 or ‘Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborn’” (http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/10/late-term-abortions-statistics-born.html).

The data used to discover the existence of these possible murders is from Statistics Canada, CANSIM Table 102-0536, “Deaths by Cause, Chapter XVI, Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period” (http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&retrLang=eng&id=1020536&paSer=&pattern=&stByVal=1&p1=1&p2=-1&tabMode=dataTable&csid=).

According to the Criminal Code, a child is considered to be a human being and a person after proceeding fully from the mother’s womb, therefore, based on Section 223(2) of the Criminal Code, there should be 491 homicide investigations or prosecutions in connection with these deaths.

As you would know, Section 223(2) of the Criminal Code reads, “A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.” That is to say, anyone who interferes with a pregnancy such that the child dies after it is born alive due to that interference is guilty of homicide.

The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) has also reported 119 live birth abortions for the year 2010/2011 (http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/12/update-live-birth-abortions-on-rise-in.html), which is an extremely troubling increase from previous years.

This increase indicates that the killing of Canadian children may continue to grow if these apparent crimes are not investigated, and the perpetrators prosecuted.

These incidents appear to be homicides. Therefore a thorough police investigation is required, and I am formally requesting you to pursue that. I can make several experts on this matter available to you in the course of your investigation, should you so desire.

These incidents that need investigating took place across Canada, making this a national investigation. Furthermore, in many of Canada’s province’s, the RCMP is the provincial police force. It, therefore, is the best police force in Canada to exercise the leadership necessary to investigate these serious charges.

I look forward to your expeditious confirmation that you have commenced an investigation.

Yours sincerely,

Maurice Vellacott,
Member of Parliament,
Saskatoon-Wanuskwein                   

Leon Benoit,
Member of Parliament,
Vegreville-Wainwright

Wladyslaw Lizon,
Member of Parliament,
Mississauga East-Cooksville

Barbara Kay: Apples, Oranges and Aborted Babies

 1 Response »
Feb 022013
 

By Barbara Kay

Abortion is legal in Canada. Yeah, we get that. Hear it a lot. A lot. So is driving a car. But driving is a regulated activity, and so far none of the many driving regulations that help to save lives has ever plunged us down that slippery slope to denying people the right to buy a car.

And when I say “save lives” in this analogous way, I am not being coy. I am talking about recognized criminal activity. I am talking about a living human being that is outside the womb. If you cause injuries to a baby that causes it to die when delivered, or you actively kill a child that is alive when outside the womb, even if the umbilical cord is still attached, then according to the Criminal Code of Canada, you are committing homicide.

The MPs from Saskatchewan, Alberta and Ontario made the request on House of Commons letterhead to RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson.  In the letter, the MPs say abortions performed at 20 weeks gestation or later breach Section 223a of the Criminal Code, which says a person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being. 

According to the Criminal Code, a child is a human being when it emerges completely from the womb — whether or not the umbilical cord has been severed, it is breathing on its own or has “independent circulation.”  The MPs say the killing of Canadian children may continue to grow if they are not thoroughly investigated by police.

MPs from Saskatchewan, Alberta and Ontario have said they want late-term abortions that result in a live birth and then death to the baby investigated by the police as potential cases of homicide. Naturally the usual suspects are having their usual fit of the vapours at the very idea.

Between 2000-2009, the MPS allege, “there were 491 abortions, of 20 weeks gestation and greater that resulted in live births.” If that is the case – and the sources I have seen are persuasive in their credibility – then we are talking about an average of 54 such births a year.

That’s a few more than the average year’s tally of killings of women by their intimate partners. I got into a Twitter dispute with one of my colleagues yesterday. I asked him if it wasn’t worth one regulatory constraint on late-term abortions if it prevented 54 deaths of living babies a year. He adamantly rejected it: “apples and oranges” he called the comparison.

There is more than one kind of slippery slope. And right now we are on a slippery slope to complicity with criminality.

I reject his comparison. Life outside the womb is life. Unless of course you are one of those creepy new progressive types that call for the right to kill babies with defects up to 30 days outside the womb. I asked my friend: Suppose there were a regulation we could impose that would effectively end spousal homicide of women: Wouldn’t you be eager to see it implemented? He didn’t answer.

But I know what he means by apples and oranges. Apples are women – and their protection from harm is the driver of much anguished public debate. Oranges are live babies that are not really “alive” in the moral sense in his mind if the mother delivering it doesn’t want it.

All that tells me is that this otherwise bright friend is so programmed to believe in the slippery slope of abortion regulation that he can’t bring himself to countenance a single exception to our no-fetters situation. Which is odd, because every other nation in the world insists on certain regulations, and no democratic nation has outlawed abortion in general.

This refusal to stare down the hands-off fetishists is getting downright silly. Worse, it is permitting criminal activity in the name of social harmony. Well, I don’t feel particularly harmonious about those 491 live births and I am betting there are plenty of other Canadians who believe in abortion as a general right, but are also sickened by late-term abortions and would be perfectly happy to see that aspect of the practice regulated.

There is more than one kind of slippery slope. And right now we are on a slippery slope to complicity with criminality. Is this really what most Canadians want, or are they just too cowed by the totalitarian abortion lobby to speak up?

bkay@videotron.ca

National Post

Family Freedom Fighters: The Hypocrisy of Multiculturalism

 1 Response »
Dec 142012
 

Dr. Salim Mansur, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Western Ontario, shows how the doctrine of official multiculturalism has produced hypocrisy in Canada’s Supreme Court and Criminal Code, and at the UN.

“Liberalism”, he tells Ron Gray, no longer means what philosophers like John Locke wrote of: the goal of liberty for individuals; it has been corrupted by multiculturalism into group equality—and some groups are wildly illiberal.

‘Pre-born children are human beings,’ says Mary Wagner

 4 Responses »
Dec 132012
 
Mary-Wagner2

RoadKill Radio News, December 13, 2012

Mary Wagner sits in an Ontario prison, charged with “mischief” and “breach of probation”. For what? For talking to women, while giving them flowers and pamphlets in the reception area of an abortion mill.

Why did she do it? In the hope of giving an informed choice and practical support to mothers—and their babies.

In a ‘notice of constitutional question’, filed for her Nov. 22 by Brantford lawyer Dr. Charles Lugosi under the Courts of Justice Act, Mary Wagner asks the courts to acknowledge that Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as the nation’s unwritten constitution, both bestow dignity, equality, life, liberty and security of the person to every living human being in Canada—whether born or not yet born.

Her defense requires an interpretation of Section 37(1) of the Criminal Code by the courts, recognizing that living pre-born children are under the protection of the Charter; and that the words “any one” in Section 37 of the Criminal Code include all living human beings, at any age, whether born or not—regardless of their present legal status.

Mary also demands the right to exercise her constitutional freedoms of conscience, religion, expression, thought, belief, opinion, peaceful assembly and association—which would allow her to use conversational speech, pamphlets and flowers in a peaceful, non-violent manner to persuade pregnant mothers of unborn children not to choose abortion.

To win, she needs to have the courts do what Parliament has failed to do—declare Section 223(1) of the Criminal Code to be unconstitutional. Section 223(1) defines ‘human being’ as follows: “A child becomes a human being… When it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother…”

This definition, says Dr. Lugosi, Wagner’s lawyer, is “out of touch with biological reality; for human beings all commence life from the time of conception.”

The Criminal Code needs a definition of “human being” that conforms to modern biological science, practical reality and common sense, he says. The current exclusion of living, unborn human beings from the human family is a matter of politics, he asserts, and obstructs use of Section 37 of the Criminal Code in the defense of a living unborn human being who is about to be killed.

“It is also inconsistent with hundreds of years of Common Law, that gives legal rights to living unborn human beings, in matters such as inheritance.”

Mary Wagner says it is only right that living pre-born human beings, who are currently not recognized as persons in law, be accorded equality with born human beings, who are recognized as legal persons.

If Mary’s arguments are accepted by the Court, there is an irreconcilable collision between a woman’s right to choose death for her living pre-born child, and that child’s constitutional right to life; for if the pre-born child is recognized to be a human being, with the right to life, liberty and security of the person, the pregnant mother’s liberty must yield to the pre-born person’s right to continued life and security of the person. The liberty to inflict an assault ends where it conflicts with another human being’s right to be left alone; there, the security of the person from assault, and protection of life begin.

No date has yet been set for hearing Mary’s constitutional question.

RoadKill Radio News: Pros and Cons of ‘Bathroom Bill’ C-279

 2 Responses »
Nov 282012
 

RoadKill Radio News, November 28, 2012

What are the issues behind Bill C-279, the NDP’s “Bathroom Bill”?

Left-winger, anti-spank, sex activist Libby Davies, NDP member for Vancouver East, cites two reasons for supporting the bill:

• There is at present no specific protection for the rights of transsexuals; and

• Canada is already a signatory to the UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.

According to the “Summary” that appears on the government’s website, Bill C-279 states:

This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to include gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination.

It also amends the Criminal Code to include gender identity and gender expression as distinguishing characteristics protected under section 318 and as aggravating circumstances to be taken into consideration under section 718.2 at the time of sentencing.

This isn’t the first time “gender expression” has hit the parliamentary pavement.  Previous versions of virtually the same bill have been grinding away according to Ms. Davies since 2005 and again in 2006 and then again in 2008 by NDP MP Bill Siksay, who managed to have it passed by the House of Commons, only to have it die on the Order Paper in the Senate when the last election was called.

Dean Allison, Conservative member for Niagara West—Glanbrook in Ontario, points out that existing protections under “sex” in the Canadian Human Rights Act can be interpreted by the courts to protect transsexuals.

But, he says, creating a legal right to gender identity and gender expression could result in men gaining access to girls’ bathrooms and showers in public places, such as schools, public pools or gymnasiums. The bill would give such special rights to those who simply consider themselves transgendered, giving sexual predators access to women’s facilities. “Imagine the trauma a young girl would face, going into a washroom, or a change room at a public pool, and finding a man there,” he says.

“The Canadian Human Rights Act does not require total blindness to the distinction between men and women, but already requires intervention when people experience discrimination on the grounds of sex.”

Nor, he says, should tribunals and courts be asked to reconstruct and re-interpret gender “norms”.

Of course our neighbours to the south are already grappling with this reality.  A recent story in Lifesite News hit the public’s headlights when a community college gave the go ahead to a man named “Colleen” who took seriously his right to “express” (and expose) his gender in the women’s change room, a change room used often by children as young as 6 who participate in community activities.

There is good news and bad.  The bad news is that this bill has passed 2nd reading. The current status of Bill C-279, according to the government’s website, is that “the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.”  This link will take you to the record of the vote so you can see how YOUR MP voted.

The good news is that one MP is actively standing-up for common-sense.  Rob Anders, Conservative MP for Calgary West, has drafted a petition that demands Parliament act in protecting the best interests of children by defeating Bill C-279.  You can download a copy of the petition here, get you friends and family to sign it and make your voice count!

It’s time for Parliament to stop hiding behind the courts, and have the courage to stand up for and defend public norms based on civil decency and privacy concerns.

Family Freedom Fighters: If Not Human, What?

 1 Response »
Sep 152012
 

The Canadian Medical Association has issued a statement—political, not medical—saying that a baby does not become a human being until after it is born.

Let’s parse that carefully. We’ll start with the organization making the statement: The Canadian Medical Association. Who are they?

Well, they’re actually an imitative branch-plant of the American Medical Association. It’s an example of the “Ooooh! They’ve got one! Let’s us have one, too!” syndrome.

But where did the AMA come from?

From the Rockefeller Foundation’s largesse. Here’s how:

In 1913, when a cabal of American Robber Barons drafted legislation for a graduated income tax—a policy espoused by Karl Marx, interestingly—they included a provision for tax-exempt charitable foundations. By keeping control of the shares they put into the foundations, they were able to exert influence on the stock market without appearing to violate the anti-trust laws. But the shares they retained would benefit from their advance knowledge of what they were going to do with their Foundation shares.

John D. Rockefeller wanted to split the income earned by the Rockefeller Foundation shares between rural education and medicine. Education was no problem: he just gave the money to rural school boards. He hired a guy to disburse the medical funds—but the guy he hired knew nothing about medicine. So he went to Leipzig, in Germany to find out what state-of-the-art medicine was doing there; as it turned out, Leipzig doctors were big on pharmaceuticals and surgery—two topics being taught at only one school in the USA: Johns-Hopkins. So Johns-Hopkins got the Rockefeller cash.

But it didn’t take long for the other universities to discover how to get on the gravy train: their curricula soon included pharmaceuticals and surgery. And that became the model for medical education in the USA.

Ironically, John D’s own personal physician was a homeopath—but homeopathy, like chiropractic, was excluded from the gravy train.

The graduates of the new allopathic medicine schools funded by Rockefeller became the founders of the AMA… and their pattern and policies were copied by the CMA.

So that’s the origin of the organization that now tells us a pre-born baby isn’t human.

I have a question for the CMA: if the parents are both human, the progeny is certainly not a rabbit. If the parents are both human, what IS the baby, if not human?

Am I putting down doctors? Not at all. They’re healers, and their training and compassion are important to us. But I am pointing out that their real expertise is confined to just one part of the healing arts. And within that part, there is a tiny—and, happily, a shrinking—number of doctors who are willing to be killers, instead of healers.

Thus the absurd CMA statement that pre-born babies aren’t human beings is merely a professional group’s attempt to protect a grisly billion-dollar-a year industry that enriches those few.

Parliament will soon decide whether to reconsider the 400-year-old criterion that undergirds that grisly industry. To many politicians, an organization like the CMA represents a convenient clumping together of potential votes; and when the opinion of such a group is falsely presented to them as being all on one side, it may seem to them to have weight… and that needs a counter-weight: your opinion.

This is an urgent time for you to act: visit, call or write your Member of Parliament and urge them to support Motion 312, by MP Stephen Woodworth, on September 21.

Woodworth wants Parliament to create a committee to review Section 223 of the Criminal Code, which says a child becomes a human being when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother.

Woodworth, quite correctly, argues: “If a child, five minutes before birth, can be defined as ‘not a human being’, then the question is: ‘Who’s next?’”

Don’t put this off: contact your Member of Parliament right away to make sure your opinion is heard. Best is to make an appointment to visit them at their constituency office; next-best is to phone them, and leave a message for them to call you back—then tell them this issue is important to you, and could influence your vote at the next election; If nothing else, write a letter (no postage needed), or send an e-mail. But make sure your MP knows your opinion.

Canadian-born comedian Mort Sahl used to quip, in the ’50s, that “The AMA is opposed to faith healing—or any other cure that is quick and inexpensive.” Don’t let the voice of a lobby group like that influence your Member of Parliament.

Remember: your voice matters.

Update on Out In Schools Police Investigation! Culture Guard News Release

 No Responses »
Dec 072011
 

Culture Guard Special

Dec. 7, 2011

For immediate release

(Click here for the video update and VPD Const. Lott’s telephone message)

Complaint? What complaint?

VPD comments on the ‘completed investigation’ into a complaint they never received!

The Out In Schools saga continues!

As you may recall, in September Kari Simpson attempted to file a complaint with the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) against the Out in Schools program and the program’s umbrella organization, the Out on Screen Film Society, for luring students to—and then exposing them to—pornography. She also wanted an investigation of the Vancouver School Board and the BC Teachers’ Federation, which had both endorsed the smutty program.

Constable Eric Lott, who “volunteered” to respond to (or, more likely, get rid of) the complaint, took no notes about the charges, and refused to accept the written documentation Simpson had taken to the Cambie Street headquarters of the VPD.

Within 30 seconds of meeting Const. Lott, Kari became suspicious that he had an ulterior agenda; during their 35-minute meeting the Constable did not exhibit the expected police professionalism—unless acting like a thug is now recognized by the VPD as a profession.

For those of us who know Kari—well, she is just the wrong person to try to bully or intimidate!

Unimpressed by Const. Lott’s thuggish tactics, Kari turned the tables on him, and asked what division he works in. It turned out that he is in traffic. Kari then asked what expertise, as a traffic cop, he has in investigating pornography.

Hit with this reality, Lott suggested another way to handle the complaint: he suggested that Kari should talk to the Diversity Unit.

When the Diversity Unit didn’t answer Const. Lott’s phone call, Kari obtained the number and said she would to contact them, and then left the VPD building taking with her all her documentation, unfiled complaint and witnesses.

When Kari returned to her office at approx 11 p.m., Const. Lott had left a phone message detailing a proposed “new approach” to receiving the still-unfiled complaint. He now wanted, as the “first responder,” to take possession of the complaint and pass it on to Vice and the Diversity/Hate units.

By this time Kari had been advised of some troubling information: apparently the VPD had already participated in an activity sponsored by the very group responsible for exposing the school kids to PORN!

Kari decided that she would pursue charges through a different venue, and did not provide the complaint and/or any documentation to the VPD.

Here’s where the story becomes really entertaining!

According to VPD media spokesman Const. Lindsay Houghton, and unbeknownst to Kari, the VPD alleged that she did “file a complaint”—even though there was no statement given, there was no file number assigned, and there was no information provided to the VPD—except for the cursory discussion and rude responses by Const. Lott on September 13, 2011.

So without receiving any of Kari’s documentation, or taking any notes of his own about the charges, Const. Lott apparently had the complaint “investigated”.

It gets more mystifying: Kari was recently advised that some unknown “investigator” proceeded to clear Out In Schools of any wrongdoing—without ever talking to Kari or obtaining any of her documented evidence.

Clearly, the VPD has decided to give special rights to radical sex activists among the LGBTQ++ community.

In previously related matters, the VPD allowed a member to broadcast silly personal definitions of what he views as “hate”: a definition that would compromise investigations by calling murders “hate crimes” before the police inquiry is finished.

The VPD also allowed its members to stand by and watch decent citizens being assaulted by gay activists during a parental rights rally. It regularly turns a blind eye to open breaches of the Criminal Code during the annual “pride” parade; ignores complaints by concerned citizens about public sex in park areas that should be safe for kids and families; and now carries out fake “investigations” into school programs that lure children into a world of gay pornography and sex without even talking to the complainant—and then issues a statement about how “age-appropriate” the program is!

One has to wonder: would Aaron Webster be alive today if the VPD had ensured that the law was being properly enforced at this well-known public site, where homosexual men meet for illegal sexual encounters?

Why do those words “bias”, “pandering” and “gay toady” keep coming to mind? Why is the VPD so fearful of the sex activists that they ignore open breaches of the law? Why is the VPD willing to compromise its reputation to scam the public into believing that they “investigated” a complaint that was never received or properly investigated?

Does VPD Chief Jim Chu really believe that a school program that lured students to a Queer Film Festival party featuring games like “Lesbian Debauchery” and “The Queeriodic Table” is appropriate for teen-agers?

Does the VPD really believe that exposing teens—and younger—to graphic gay porn is “age appropriate”, as VPD spokesman Const. Houghton says?

Does Chief Chu and the VPD members really believe that the Out In Schools program that linked students to a hardcore porn site, other sex sites and gay sex-activist political sites is “age appropriate”? How many parents did they talk to in this farce of an “investigation”? How many parents were ever informed of the truth about this program, and then still found themselves to be “engaged” as the VPD claims?

In this Culture Guard special update, you’ll hear the voice message from Constable Lott, admitting he doesn’t have the complaint… but now wants to “take possession” of it! But remember: Kari never gave it to him! Now she wants to know—as the named complainant—what did the VPD investigate? And on what did they base their so-called “investigation”?!?

Kari says she can hardly wait to share the details of what emerges from her Freedom of Information request!

Stay tuned!

Click here for the Culture Guard Update video

=30=

Contact: Kari Simpson Tel: (604) 514-1614

Email cultureguard@gmail.com

‘Out In Schools’ update: unanswered questions, boy using girls’ washroom

 No Responses »
Oct 052011
 

Culture Guard news release
For immediate release
October 5, 2011

‘Out In Schools’ update: unanswered questions, boy using girls’ washroom

It looks like OUT IN SCHOOLS (“OIS”) is in damage control mode.

“Since Culture Guard’s first ‘Pornogate’ news release revealed that the program has exposed children to graphic pornography and games, there’s been considerable “editing” on the OIS website!” says Culture Guard president Kari Simpson.

In addition, Culture Guard has learned that a teenage boy at a Burnaby school—who claims he is “transgendered”—insists on using girls’ washrooms. Girls at his school say they don’t feel safe, and some Muslim girls (whose faith says males must not see their uncovered hair) right’s have been violated by his use of the girls washroom while they were using their facility.

The OIS website used to say the program had been submitted to the Ministry of Education for approval; that claim has recently been taken off the website.

The name of Romi Chandra (spouse of NDP MLA and sex activist Spencer Chandra Herbert), the author of the OIS “teachers’ guide,” has also recently been eliminated from the OIS website.

Few interviews have been granted by OIS facilitator Ross Johnstone or by Drew Dennis, Executive Director for OUT ON SCREEN, the “society” that acts as the umbrella organization for both OIS and the Queer Film Festival. But neither man has denied Culture Guard’s factual assertions that the OIS program lures students and exposes them to graphic homosexual pornography.

Ross Johnstone did offer one comforting assurance in his interview with the BC Catholic newspaper: “Alcohol is not served…”

TELUS, one of the major corporate funders of OIS, has begun a damage control campaign. The telecommunications giant has sent letters to individuals who protested TELUS’s financial support for an organization that uses deception to manipulate parents, students and other educational stakeholders.

Jill Schnarr, Vice President of Community Affairs for TELUS, was the signatory on letters passed on to Culture Guard by active citizens. Ms. Schnarr went so far as to contact one individual by phone, and assured him that TELUS had ceased funding the OUT IN SCHOOLS program. However, while the “TELUS” logo has been removed from the list of supporters on the OIS website, CAYA—TELUS’ pro-gay retail division—is featured in its place.

The CAYA site still says proudly that TELUS is still funding and supporting the OIS program, which lures and grooms children with political propaganda, sex activism and graphic gay porn.

Kari Simpson, President of Culture Guard, says she will ask the organization’s fast-growing constituency—which was easily mobilized in 2001 to help obliterate the NDP, when it declared war on BC’s schools (click here for the “Most Dangerous Woman in BC” article)—to begin a letter-writing campaign to PavCo, asking them rethink any consideration of awarding TELUS naming rights to the revamped BC Place Stadium.

Simpson says, “I can forgive TELUS for its initial support of OIS, even though it was negligent not to do its due diligence; but when they start playing name games to mislead their own subscribers, that’s ethically wrong and corporately irresponsible. Any corporation funding a program after they’ve been told it betrays the trust of parents and taxpayers, and exposes children to pornography, has earned the contempt of consumers, the government, the business community and the public.”

Mrs. Simpson has written a letter to Ross Johnstone asking 47 hard questions that she says should have been asked by school boards and responsible corporate citizens before they even touched the OIS program.

For example, Simpson states in her letter that Nancy Walt, for the Ministry of Education, has stated in writing that the Ministry of Education has not received any kind of request from OIS for approval. But until recently, the OIS website stated that Ministry approval had been requested. “How can this be?” she asks Mr. Johnstone. “Is Ms. Walt, or someone else, lying?”

Question 4 of her letter asks: “Have you falsely asserted to sponsors and/or funders that this resource had in fact been sent for approval to the Ministry of Education?”

In her complaint to the Vancouver Police Department, Mrs. Simpson pointed out that if funders were deceived to obtain funds under false pretenses that would constitute a violation under the Criminal Code.

[Update: Click here to see how the complaint was rejected by the receiving officer!]

Referring to the “Fierce and Fabulous under-25” party to which OIS invited adolescents, Simpson tells Johnstone: “Now, you haven’t been quite honest with the media about your promotion of the H.I.M. organization—promotion that was not limited to just the reference to the youth resource link (in the teachers’ guide & website), but also included H.I.M.’s very visible participation at the party to which you invited students.

“I am familiar with the H.I.M. organization, and its graphically pornographic promotional material distributed and displayed in large poster form at public venues like the Pride Parade and the ‘Fierce and Fabulous’ party held August 12th,” she declares.

She then asks: “Did you advise parents that their children would be exposed to graphic homosexual pornography? Did you advise the various Boards of School Trustees that students would be exposed to graphic pornography? Did you advise sponsors and funders of OIS that students would be exposed to graphic pornography?”

Simpson says many more questions need answering; but the most important one is: “How did this program and its social-sexual political agenda ever gain access to students? It is grossly flawed and a complete violation of trust and the well-being of children, it is time for Premier Clark to demonstrate real leadership and call for a full investigation,” she said today.

=30=

Click here for the letter Simpson sent to Ross Johnstone
Click here for the Culture Guard video update.

Contact: Kari Simpson – cultureguard@gmail.com

RoadKill Radio invites BC Civil Liberties & Euthanasia Prevention Coalition to a debate

 1 Response »
Apr 302011
 

Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, has accepted an invitation to debate physician-assisted suicide; RoadKill Radio will now invite the BC Civil Liberties Association to represent the other side in an on-air debate.

The issue arose after BCCLA launched a lawsuit aimed at striking down a part of Section 241 of the Criminal Code, which makes it illegal to assist or counsel someone to commit suicide.

“Parliament has already debated the proposal, with Francine LaLonde’s private member’s bill last year,” Schadenberg reminded RKR listeners. “It was voted down massively.”

He also said the courts are the wrong place to have the issue decided: “Section 241 is designed to protect the vulnerable,” he said. “If Parliament were to amend the law, they could put in place protections against abuse. But if that section of the Criminal Code is struck down by the courts, they’d be left with no protection at all.”

Experience in the Netherlands and Belgium has shown that after assisted suicide was legalized, up to 32 per cent of recorded suicides are non-consensual—that is, the patient did NOT consent to have his or her life ended; and it is also estimated that only half of “assisted suicides” in those countries are reported.

“We need the law against assisted suicide to protect the vulnerable from abuse,” said Shadenberg.

RoadKill Radio host Kari Simpson said the BCCLA will also be invited to debate the issue live on-air, probably in May. Stay tuned for more news.

click here for Alex Schadenberg’s blog
click here to download/listen to the RKR archived show

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

23 November 2010 Webcast

 No Responses »
Nov 232010
 

Show #84 Part 1

Download Show #84 Part 1

23 November 2010 – TROUBLE, SEX & POLYGAMY!
BILL GAIRDNER – the True Conservative, joins us to talk about his most recent book – THE TROUBLE WITH CANADA… STILL! Bill is a prolific writer and a champion of common sense. This will be a fascinating discussion.

Show #84 Part 2

Download Show #84 Part 2

Terry O is rightly outraged by the Ontario judge who made unjust accusations against the father of two little girls who were tragically murdered by their mother. Justice is both blind & dumb in this case. (Click here for the story.) Then “Don’t touch my junk” – Air travel in the brave new world! Are we being conditioned to conform? Kari says: “You betcha!”

Show #84 Part 3

Download Show #84 Part 3

DOUG CHRISTIE, lawyer and one of Canada’s most respected legal minds and a great defender of free speech and individual liberty will join us to talk about the Polygamy case that is taking place in Vancouver. Doug is representing CAFE (Canadian Association for Free Expression) and arguing in favour of striking down the Criminal Code section involving polygamy! We should be selling tickets to this discussion (free-for-all)!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Polygamy in Vancouver

 No Responses »
Nov 232010
 

Show #84 Part 3

Download Show #84 Part 3

23 November 2010 – DOUG CHRISTIE, lawyer and one of Canada’s most respected legal minds and a great defender of free speech and individual liberty joins us to talk about the Polygamy case that is taking place in Vancouver. Doug is representing CAFE (Canadian Association for Free Expression) and arguing in favour of striking down the Criminal Code section involving polygamy! We should be selling tickets to this discussion (free-for-all)!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download