Conservative M.P. back-bencher, Stephen Woodworth, from the Kitchener-Waterloo riding has put forth a Private Member’s Bill asking to revisit the determination of what constitutes a human being. Callers to the Arlene Bynon talk show led to questions about Mr. Woodworth‘s agenda and whether this was a blatant attempt to reopen the abortion debate. Of course, advocates of abortion denounced Woodworth as seeking to roll back women’s rights and deny them of their “right to choose.”

Asked to explain his rationale, the M.P. stated that the definition is 400 years old and based on the limited knowledge of the time. To put this into context, the science world at that time was being rocked by Galileo’s claim that the earth was round. He pointed out that scientific advancements now inform us far better on prenatal life and he expressed that human beings should not be considered non-persons based on failure to recognise the reality of their personhood. This is especially vital since human rights spring from their worth – not just in the eyes of others, but in the eyes of the law.

I have what I believe to be a more compelling question than whether Mr. Woodworth has a hidden agenda, but what is the agenda of his flat-earth opponents. In a country steeped in defences of rights for individuals and groups deemed to have long been denied those rights, why are these secular moralists of convenience looking to denounce the proposed bill from coming forward?

On his talk show, John Tory postulated that recent efforts to reopen the abortion debate were wrong-headed. Praising Harper for staunchly maintaining he would support the status quo, Tory argued in a brief segment (which he took no phone calls on) that re-opening the debate would be unwise. The only rationale proffered was to suggest it would reignite violence.

Given this argument, I have an obvious (at least to me) question: If pro-lifers are a danger to abortion providers, why has there been a paucity of violence despite having no abortion law for 24 years? Are we to believe that simply discussing the issue will lead to a spate of violent acts? What purpose does it serve for pro-lifers to engage in violence once the prospect that lifting potential restrictions on abortion may be in the offing?

Two obvious prospects can be postulated to give any relevance to Tory’s cautionary assertions:

1. Pro-lifers have fallen into obsolescence and have largely given up the fight. If this is so, what is there to fear in re-opening the issue? Pro-lifers would be toothless and their risible and futile efforts would once and propel the issue into lasting obscurity, or;
2. The violence would spring from abortion proponents trying to maintain their tenuous grasp on a position that is morally reprehensible and indefensible. In this scenario, abortion proponents would be shown up as hateful ideologues; deliberately imposing legalized killing on the public. It would prove that neither pro-lifers nor the unborn are the problem – pro-abortion activists and their message are.

I presented several reasons to John Tory for why re-opening the abortion debate would not only be prudent, but vital; affording him an opportunity for something he denied his listeners – a chance to respond. He didn’t. My points were:

• There are presently no legal restrictions on abortion (they can be performed at any stage and for any reason) yet a majority of people support at least some restrictions.
• No pro-abortion argument effectively refutes or disproves the scientific evidence that life begins at conception, therefore no one can refute that abortion is the sanctioned killing of innocent unborn lives. This is true even when defenders invoke even the most elastic philosophical standards (including legal abortion or viable babies).
• Abortion is tax-funded at all public and private clinics. This is 2-tier health care that violates health care standards and is always medically unnecessary. It also robs pro-lifers of their “choice” refuse the forced funding of an act they deem morally reprehensible.
• Dwindling population numbers elevate the costs of social programs and a ballooning deficit, imposing economic hardship on the rest of us.
• There are established physical and psychological risks to women that are being ignored because the issue has become taboo to even bring up. Abortion providers counsel women toward abortion because that is where they make most of their money. Consequently, the status quo risks women’s health and heightens their isolation.
• Evidence reveals that simple measures (informed consent, parental consent and showing ultrasounds) swells the ranks of women who choose to keep their baby, yet abortion organisations oppose and stifle these messages. Lack of education allows for women to be pressured into a decision they will later regret.

We can add to this the trampling of religious freedoms now in the U.S. as Obamacare plans to force Catholics to pay for birth control and abortifacients.

The fact is that it is abortion proponents only who benefit from not reopening the abortion debate since they hold all the cards on the issue. What is among the most disquieting aspects of this is that a man who ran as Premier under the “Conservative” banner has so little insight into the issue itself or many of the constituents he was tasked to represent. His very comments and apparent indifference are all the evidence we need that the debate must happen.

Click here to read Tom’s bio.

By Dr. Larry Bray

And he said, “There was a man who had two sons. And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property between them. Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in reckless living. And when he had spent everything, a severe famine arose in that country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed pigs. And he was longing to be fed with the pods that the pigs ate, and no one gave him anything. “But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants.”‘ And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate. (Luke 15:11-24)

This empty conceit and selfishness that are seeds in the prodigal son’s character leads to a particular fruit…as all seed leads to its own kind of fruit. This kind of seed produces the fruit of suffering. We see in our passage that the prodigal son suffered in 5 things.

He suffered being destitute. He spent all that he had, he wasted his entire inheritance and had nothing to show for it. He lost his:
•Money
•Property
•Talents
•Purpose
•Opportunities

All of these things he used to fulfill the lusts of his flesh. All of these things that should have been a blessing to him, turned into a curse because he fed his flesh and not his spirit. This son misused the gifts that his father had given to him, and it lead to utter poverty. This son rebelled against his generous father…and the gifts that the father had given him, that should have been used to bring honor to the father, were used to further sin by feeding the son’s lusts.

How many times have we used the gifts that our Heavenly Father has given us for our own lusts? How many times have we used money, property, talent, and opportunities to further our own little kingdoms instead of using them to further the great and awesome kingdom of our God? I fear that it’s too many times to even count. Do we spend our gifts on the God who gave them to us or do we spend them on ourselves? Do we walk in the Spirit in all that we do or do we walk in the flesh, which lusts against the Spirit?

One of the greatest gifts that God gives us is time. I realize this more and more as I see people who die in their prime of life. Time is a gift that we must use while we have it because every moment that we neglect is a moment that we have lost, we can’t get it back. God tells us in His Word to:

Look carefully how we walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. (Ephesians 5:15-16)

Are we making the best use of our time? Are we living the life that Christ died for us to live? A life that is patterned after Christ, not the world? Or are we living a life that looks no different from those whom Christ has not redeemed? How much time do we spend at work, watching t.v., going to sporting events, going to movies, and on and on? Compared to that, how much time do we spend in prayer, reading the Scripture, evangelizing, communing with the saints? I would encourage all of us to take a serious look at how we spend our time, that we may learn how to better use it for the glory of God.

This prodigal son clothed himself with the world. He tried to find satisfaction in the world and to be comforted by the world. Make no mistake; we can’t be clothed both by the world and by Christ. Being clothed by the world leaves us just as it did this prodigal son, alone and destitute. Being clothed with Christ leaves us always in the blessings of God because in Christ we are:

Blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places (Ephesians 1:3)

If we truly put on Christ why do we look so much like the world and so little like Christ? Our Lord tells us to…

walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires. (Romans 13:13-14)

Can any of us accomplish what God demands of us here? Can we work to make no provision for the flesh? We are helpless and completely unable to do this, but that is why we are first told to “put on the Lord Jesus Christ.” For though it is impossible with man, all things are possible with God (Mark 10:27). There is one thing that we are called to do in order to make no provision for the flesh…put on Christ. Some may say, “But wait…what about the armor of God? Surely that’s many things that we must put on.” Well, let’s look at that. In the armor of God we have:
•Belt of truth – Jesus is the truth
•Breastplate of righteousness – Jesus is our righteousness
•Shoes of the Gospel of peace – the Gospel of peace is the work of Christ
•Shield of faith – our faith is in Jesus
•Helmet of salvation – salvation comes from Christ
•Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God – Christ is the Word, and He will slay His enemies with the sword of His mouth

So you see, the armor of God is nothing less than Christ Himself!

Canadians have found out, Justin time. OK, nobody likes a wise guy or a pun so excruciatingly bad that it hurts, but aren’t you beginning to wonder which planet or political miasma Justin Trudeau is inhabiting these days? In his latest attempt at dominating the national news, Trudeau mused that since the country had been taken captive by right-wing extremists, that it might be time for Quebec progressives, in that unique land of liberty, equality and fraternity, to carefully weigh their options: “I always say, if at a certain point, I believe that Canada was really the Canada of Stephen Harper — that we were going against abortion, and we were going against gay marriage, and we were going backwards in 10,000 different ways — maybe I would think about making Quebec a country.”

Apparently this is not something that he always says. He would not have exceeded his quota of media hits this week if that were so. But what is so jarringly silly about the accusation is just how utterly inaccurate is the sentiment. Clearly the Canada of Stephen Harper and his majority government is doing nothing to address the fact of unrestricted abortion in Canada. It should. Most Canadians are fundamentally uncomfortable with the current lack of any abortion law. A clear majority do not believe that the “procedure” should be publicly funded. But no matter. The “right-wing” Harper government is not going to change that. As for gay “marriage,” the Conservative government kept its promise to social conservatives to have another House of Commons vote and did so on Dec. 7, 2006. The minority government lost the vote. Harper and Justice Minister Rob Nichols have both repeatedly said that the issue will not be reopened.

So that leaves just 9,998 other “different ways” for Justin to consider Quebec secession. Though one suspects that these separatist incentives might be just as fictitious as the first two.

When challenged by Parliament Hill reporters to clarify his words, PET II was defiant: “The question is not why does Justin Trudeau suddenly not love this country, because the question is ridiculous.” Well thank you so much for making that clear, but it is probably more ridiculous to insist that Quebec should leave Canada because of Conservative government policies that have neither been discussed nor implemented.

Yet what is perhaps more indicative of extreme political egoism is Justin’s refusal to use the declarative of “I” and to speak instead of himself in the third person, as if he were discussing Douglas MacArthur’s return to the Philippines or ensuring we understand that every utterance from this political colossus is worthy of the historical record. Has he entered a dangerous political zone of detachment from reality?

Ultimately, Trudeau’s performance this week should not just be about his evident political immaturity or apparent desire to cripple a promising career in federal politics, one that seemed both assured and inevitable as the offspring of a former prime minister. Nor should it just be about the annoyance of a Quebecer once again insisting that a province of low-productivity, high unemployment and high taxes is setting the standard for the rest of the nation. The real question raised is why anyone expecting to occupy high office in Canada could possibly advocate the secession of a province because he disagrees with the current government of Canada – a government that was duly elected in a democratic vote.

Despite Trudeau’s denial, that question does not seem so ridiculous.

David Krayden is the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, an independent, not-for-profit institution dedicated to the advancement of freedom and prosperity through the development and promotion of good public policy.

I could hardly believe it. Our national broadcaster (CBC) has a website which I check regularly. I know that they have an embarrassingly heavy bias on “social issues” and that their bias will be painful to experience, but I go there anyway because they do have an extensive (and expensive) network of reporters, researchers and technologies that allow them to discover and follow Canadian stories, big and small. Over the years, CBC has shown an inordinate interest in anything associated with the words “human rights”. Up until now.

On Wednesday, Feb 15, 2012, Bill C-304 passed its second reading. “What’s C-304?” you may ask. Apparently CBC (at least its online version) has not yet asked that question. Or, more likely, these news sleuths have analyzed the discussion around C-304 and don’t like it. But just because they don’t like it doesn’t normally mean they don’t cover it. In this case, CBC opinion-shapers probably have not figured out what to do with this decision. MP Brian Storseth (Westlock-St. Paul) tabled Bill C-304 “An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom)” on September 30, 2011. Two days ago, the House of Commons voted 158 to 131 to pass Bill C-304. MP Storseth’s bill would stop or reduce the constant attacks against free speech which are perpetrated and supported by the pernicious Section 13 of the Human Rights Act. Under this section, good, morally-upright, common-sense Canadians have been charged and penalized for questioning things like Canada’s out-of-control immigration system and the wisdom (?) of allowing sexual perversions to dominate the education of our children.

For those keen on learning more about C-304, you may search in vain on the taxpayer-funded website of CBC. You may have to visit alternate information sources such as Roadkill Radio, ARPA Canada and SUN News. But the changes made by eliminating the oppressive and unfair Sec. 13 will benefit all Canadians and are a welcome breath of fresh air. No more will manipulative and self-serving troublemakers who populate the ranks of misguided sex activists and the crafty stealth supporters of radical Islamist Jihad groups be able to pummel law-abiding citizens with spurious taxpayer-funded accusations of “human rights violations”, merely for pointing out inconvenient facts. Forced out of the shadows, these activist will have to rely on the courts—where truth is still a defence and there are actually rules of evidence.

Since I favour cutting costs for taxpayers, I recommend that CBC-online close down one or two expensive departments lay off some of its highly-paid staff and pick up the news from ARPA, or Roadkill or No Apologies. On its front page today, CBC talks about Paul McCartney giving up pot-smoking, Sears’ price-cutting measures and the unhealthy result of eating a grossly huge hamburger. Yet the defense of Canadians’ freedom of speech by a plucky MP from Alberta received no mention. Before C-304 passes into law, CBC will figure out a spin and come out swinging (in a thoroughly-neutral, unbiased manner no doubt—wink! wink!). But for now, they seem not to have noticed that Canadians, including MPs have said “Enough!”

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion are too important to leave to elite, taxpayer-funded broadcasters like CBC. I hope their radio and TV coverage has been better than their web presence but I spent so much time looking for it online I didn’t have time to turn on the tube. Everyone who cares about freedom: write to MP Brian Storseth, the PM, the Justice Minister and your own MP. Tell them to finish the job and deliver us from this evil Section 13. There may still be some sanity in Ottawa!

Until just recently, I was blissfully unaware of the ethical challenges posed by “dwarf-tossing”. In fact, I was blissfully unaware that such a sport existed, in Canada or anywhere else. Part of the reason for not being up-to-date on the latest in “competitive bar sports” is that I don’t hang around bars and spend very little time following the latest weird fads on TV.

However, I was shocked to discover – as are many – that tossing little people across the room could be considered a sport. Even recognizing that these little people give permission to be tossed and make a little money at it still does not dispel the sinking feeling that somehow their dignity and personhood are being assaulted. True, many of our gladiator sports – football, hockey, boxing, wrestling – put participants at risk of physical injury. However, the idea of Big People displaying their manhood and power by throwing Little People around as a public spectacle, still leaves me feeling uneasy about the direction of our society.

But wait! It suddenly dawned on me! In this country, Big People toss Little People all the time! They do it at abortion clinics. They do it for money. And even worse, they do it without asking the Little People for permission! In the bars, after a dwarf is tossed (presuming he is not badly injured) he can get up, collect his pay and have a beer with his “tosser”. Not my idea of a fun night but hey! Whatever floats your boat…?

Not so with the 100,000 babies “tossed” each year in Canada. After being salt-poisoned or dismembered or vacuumed into fragments, these Little People are literally tossed into the trash bin.

Although they have never agreed to being tossed, never signed a contract with the abortionist, who grows wealthier with every toss, never had a chance to give their opinion – they are tossed once-and-for-all. They don’t get a second chance. They will never read a newspaper article about dwarf-tossing or abortion; nor will they ever have a chance to vote for a politician, pro-dwarf-tossing, prolife or otherwise.

A lot of things are made to be tossed: salads, grenades, parting comments over your shoulder and bad laws. But people are not a thing to be tossed – for money, pleasure or convenience.

The last time that the Republican Party went to its presidential nomination convention without the nominee already decided was in 1940. Wendell Willkie was the Republican candidate in the federal election that year. He lost to Franklin Roosevelt, who had already defeated two previous Republican challengers and would go on to pummel a forth in 1944. Willkie was an unlikely candidate for president. A Wall Street businessman and former Democratic Party supporter, Willkie was the compromise choice for GOP supporters who could not stomach the isolationism of Congressional leaders like Robert Taft or feared the relative youth and foreign policy inexperience of Thomas Dewey, a whiz kid DA from New York.

Well, here we are, 72 years later, and the Republicans could well meet this summer with a deadlocked nomination race, after what has proven to be an erratic and see-saw primary campaign that is leaving everyone wondering. Congressman Ron Paul is certainly an isolationist, 21^st century style, but he does not command the prestige and party loyalty of Taft. But to Paul’s credit, he does have a worshipful crop of libertarian kids to cheer him that would have been an impossible dream for Taft, never a folk hero of the young. Romney would seem to bear the greatest resemblance to Willkie, a successful businessman who sometimes suggests that his venture capitalist career makes him a Washington outsider, if only people would forget that he was governor of the most liberal state in the Union and the father of Massachusetts health care.

The similarities end there. Newt Gingrich, a former House Speaker, is anything but an unknown quantity but would seem to possess an unknown potential for being president. He has journeyed all over the political map over the years in an effort to stay both well connected and well paid, written some very good historical novels about the Civil War and continued to admit they he has made mistakes and backed the wrong horses. His behaviour as what was essentially the Republican leader and spokesman during the Clinton era defies simple categorization. At times, when leading the Contract with America and the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 1994, Newt seemed both cognizant and in control of his place in history, relishing the opportunity to tell Americans that being “middle class is a state of mind. Lest we forget, he was Time magazine’s “Man of the Year” in 1995. But when the Speaker ride was over for Newt, he lacked friends and confidence in Congress, and some of his colleagues speak of his leadership in terms that are anything but inspiring, flattering or reassuring.

One of those former colleagues is the ex-Senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum, also in this race. Santorum, who in one candidate’s debate almost described Gingrich’s work style as bordering on crazy, was a distant third place runner last week. But then he won primaries in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri and overtook Gingrich for second place.

So who to choose? It is important to choose a conservative, who is both principled and capable of beating Barack Obama. Romney may be able to beat Obama but anyone who governed Massachusetts can hardly brag about his conservative record. Paul is a libertarian and not a conservative; moreover, his isolationism is a dangerous repudiation of the commitment to global intervention that the Republicans first made in 1952, with the candidacy and presidency of Dwight Eisenhower, and then maintained ever since. In the very unlikely eventuality that Paul should win the nomination, the subsequent election campaign would be a repeat of 1964 when Barry Goldwater was obliterated by Lyndon Johnson.

The choice, barring any last minute compromise candidate, is between Gingrich and Santorum. Though both profess conservative principles and point to a conservative record, it’s the Gingrich private life of three marriages that leaves many conservatives nervous. Santorum, at least, as a proud family man would seem to walk as he talks.

Gingrich is a crap shoot, a fascinating political gamble to take at a time in history when it is necessary to bet on the unknown and to make that calculated risk. Few thought Winston Churchill could ever be prime minister of Great Britain in 1939. But by 1940, he was probably the only leader who could envision ultimate victory against the Nazis and the only prime minister with the brazen moxy to take the fight to Hitler and never accept defeat. The establishment choices for prime minister, like Lord Halifax, would probably have sued for peace and taken the best deal possible from Germany.

With the world economy poised on the brink and American influence evanescent, these may be the times for a Newt Gingrich.

It is certainly not the time for anther four years of Obama.

David Krayden is the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, an independent, not-for-profit institution dedicated to the advancement of freedom and prosperity through the development and promotion of good public policy.

Us university lot are pampered pretty well here in Newfoundland and Labrador, if I do say so myself. Dirt-cheap tuition, a government that bends over backwards and falls to their knees at the students’ command, and Harvard-like admission averages of 65 per cent or better to get into Memorial University out of high school. (That last tidbit of information is sure to make all the Ferris Bueller-types at high schools from Bishops College to Burgeo Academy clean up their acts and hit the books extra hard to get their As in the final stretch, I’m sure.)

Now, we’re not lucky enough yet to receive free passes to the Spa at the Monastery just for showing up to classes each day – although, come to think of it, I’d love a MUN-sponsored massage right about now. But the way things are going, we may not have to wait until the next provincial election before all three parties start throwing around those types of promises.

In the meantime, yesterday marked the National Day of Action in this country, where student activists in this province rallied at Memorial University and other post-secondary institutions in protest of the federal government’s stance on post-secondary education. They want a collective vision for a well-funded post-secondary education system that builds a fair society, while combating corporate greed, and proclaiming that “education is a right.”

And it’s true – education is a right. It even says so in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights that “everyone has the right to education.” However, if you read a little further, it adds a little more detail on the subject: “Education shall be free, at least at the elementary and fundamental stages. … Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on basis of merit.” Key words: generally available.

While it’s admirable for activists from the student movement to proclaim that education is a right, post-secondary education isn’t a basic human right – it’s a privilege. And in Canada, any students that meet the standards of merit to gain entry into post-secondary institution – on the basis of scholastic achievement, or athletic abilities they can offer in the school’s environment – can do so while paying for it themselves, receiving student loans, non-repayable grant money and scholarships.

That’s the beautiful thing about Canada. Anybody can go to a post-secondary institution, no matter what socio-economic background they come from. But according to the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) and the rest of the student activists across the country, this isn’t enough. In their minds, the value of post-secondary education should be held on the same level as other basic human rights, as something that no person should have to live without. And in all reality, they don’t. Any student in Canada that wishes to attend a post-secondary can do so, by paying – yes, young people have to pay for things, too – and not indebting the federal government on something that is worth its weight in gold. It might sound like a good idea at the time, but it’s more tax dollars that you and your grandchildren will be burdened with at another time.

If the CFS had its wits about it, it would spend less time arguing what is and isn’t a right, and spend more time communicating a stronger and more realistic message to Canadians on student issues. Either way, this province’s student activists have been holding our province’s governments at their mercy for quite some time now. If anyone’s going to convince the federal government that post-secondary education is a right, then it may as well be them. But with Harper still in power, there’s a better chance of hell freezing over.

Paul Hussey is an English and political science student at Memorial University, and news editor of The Muse.