Sign in to follow this  

Crap from the Left

Recommended Posts

Barbara Kay: Abortion should be about medical ethics, not Liberal politics,

Trudeau’s obsession with abortion puzzles many Canadians. It’s as if he never discusses the subject with anyone other than a cadre of radical feminists for whom belief in women’s right to abortion whenever and for whatever reason is the litmus test for any claim whatsoever to human decency. It’s as if he doesn’t know it has been almost 30 years since the Supreme Court decision in R. vs. Morgentaler directed Parliament to enact legislation that protected “fetal rights at some point.”

Is he even aware that abortion regulation is the norm amongst all other democracies? France protects unborn children after 12 weeks’ gestation, with exceptions for mothers’ life endangerment and severe, incurable disease in the fetus. Spain bans abortion after 12 weeks, with fetal impairment exception up to 22 weeks. Germany has a 12-week window, provided the woman receives counselling three days before the procedure. Likewise in many other European and Scandinavian countries. These nations are not ultra-conservative redoubts. They are amongst the most politically liberal countries in the world. Canada is the outlier.

Is he even aware that abortion regulation is the norm amongst all other democracies?

According to the organization We Need a Law (WNAL), whose mission is to “mobilize Canadians and persuade our political leaders to pass laws that protect children before birth,” there are over 104,000 abortions performed annually in Canada. Of those, 15 per cent are performed after the first trimester. WNAL reports most Canadians are fine with first-trimester abortion, but only 40 per cent of us support second-trimester abortions, while 75 per cent of Canadians think abortion should be illegal in the third trimester. Of abortions for which the gestational age is known, WNAL estimates some 2,500 post-20 weeks abortions are performed annually. (The number is likely higher, but clinics, not hospitals, perform 75 per cent of abortions, and with no abortion law, they are not obligated to share data around them.)

Are those of us who want to see and discuss this data — many of us pro-choice in principle; I’m homing in on the details here — unfit to dine with Justin Trudeau? We look past ideology to recognize abortion is not a simple matter. Apart from the ethics of third-term abortion — arguably a form of infanticide — we get especially queasy at healthy potential girl babies being extinguished because they are girls, a phenomenon creating a demographic crisis worldwide, and a known pattern in certain cultural enclaves here. We’re offended as citizens that our prime minister actively encourages a chill on public discussion of this topic by branding us as misogynistic deplorables eager to bring back hangers in back alleys.
Sex-selection abortion is the practice of eugenics. The U.S. also has an abortion-related eugenics problem.

Sex-selection abortion is the practice of eugenics

Progressives beat their drums loudly for racialized black Americans, but the history of abortion in the U.S. is also the history of the eugenics movement (we had our own here), with poor black Americans as the prime target for collective population reduction. In comments accompanying the Supreme Court’s recent refusal to take up the issue of Indiana’s new ban on abortion, Justice Clarence Thomas included some informative and disturbing remarks about the appalling linkage of abortion and racist eugenics in America. I encourage you to read it.

American eugenicists considered the black population a reasonable target for eugenics. Thanks to Margaret Sanger’s “Negro Project,” and Planned Parenthood’s vigorous encouragement, the reported nationwide abortion rate among black women is nearly 3.5 times that of white women. In some New York areas, black babies are up to eight times more likely to be aborted than white children. Thomas says the Court should not be wading into the issue right now, but it must at some point: “Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this Court is duty-bound to address its scope.”

The U.S. needs to address the scope of an abortion law it already has. We need an abortion law, period — one that reflects the ethical concerns of Canadians, not the political concerns of Justin Trudeau. Mike Pence cares about unregulated abortion’s negative impact on women and black Americans. Our prime minister never permits himself to consider such outcomes, and bashes any of his fellow citizens who do.

Who is the “extremist” here?





  • Thanks 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are indeed facing a crisis of mass murder in our country, isn’t it time we ensure everyone — including men — is pulling their weight to stop it?


Almost every day, I help facilitate the termination of anywhere between two and five marriages. As an attorney who practices family law, ending marriages makes up the bulk of my work.

The other part of my job mostly concerns matters stemming from failed, failing and sometimes entirely nonexistent marriages. Separation agreements; child custody disputes; child support enforcement; restraining orders; parental rights termination; visitation schedule modification — each the latest turn in an often long and painful story, and each requiring my guidance.

There’s no judgment on my part. Not only is there no time for making judgments, doing so would be unprofessional and could compromise my ability to be an effective legal counselor. Moreover, my clients know their lives far better than I do, and although it’s likely some who come through my door are in marriages not yet doomed to failure, many others are stuck in matrimonial torment, well beyond the point of reconciliation. Some are even in life-threatening situations.

Read more commentary:

Three men charged mass shooters, saving lives. We need more of that masculine courage.


Roe v. Wade gave women a right to choose abortion. But doctors like me have a choice, too.

I was 12 years old and pregnant. Alabama's abortion ban bill would punish girls like me.

Still, the more cases I take on, the more I notice patterns emerging. Chief among these, many of the people I assist are mothers trying to fix the damage wrought by an absent, neglectful or abusive man. In each case, my job requires me to ask about the father’s role — or more often, whether he has one at all.


Abolishing abortion, restoring fatherhood

Eventually, the answers start to run together. Sure, he pays his support, but his children never see him. Or he’s an addict. Or he’s in jail. Or he’s with his new girlfriend. Or maybe they don’t know where he is.

When viewed against this backdrop, it is little wonder some people use words like “trapped” and “forced” to describe the consequences of banning abortion. Taken alone, laws like Georgia’s and Alabama’s, for example, put women in the precarious position of bringing a child into the world without any reliable support system.

To be clear, as a person who is strongly pro-life, I welcome nearly all efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade and eradicate abortion from our country. These legislative initiatives are long overdue, and I remain confident that abortion, much like slavery, will one day be regarded as a terrible blight on our nation’s character.

Yet a comprehensive life-affirming culture demands more than simply abolishing abortion. We must also restore the original support system that made it safe for women to choose life in the first place. In this respect, I’m greatly disappointed by the pro-life movement’s languid approach to emphasizing the other, equally crucial part of the pro-life equation: fatherhood.

A father with his son near their home in Ashburn, Virginia, in June 2014.

A father with his son near their home in Ashburn, Virginia, in June 2014. (Photo: Kate Patterson, for USA TODAY)


The arguments against banning abortion often reflect fear, frustration and desperation — not support for abortion as a positive good. Most notably, pro-choice advocates lament the lack of support for expectant mothers. They deride the absence of free health care, free child care and compulsory paid maternal leave. They even go so far as to call pro-life advocates hypocrites, saying that if people like myself really cared about sparing the unborn, we’d make it our priority to support women making the journey to motherhood alone.

Their argument is fundamentally correct (although their solutions are gravely harmful). Unwanted pregnancy is not a disease, nor is it remedied by the moral hazard wrought by additional government assistance programs. Restoring fatherhood — nature’s built-in complement to motherhood — is what is needed. And it starts by expecting more, legally and socially, from our men.

Men must face consequences, too

At the outset, we should recognize that it takes two to create life and that both parents share in the responsibility to provide for their children. We often hear, for example, of schemes to make abortion a crime for which the mother or doctor should be punished. But when was the last time someone proposed the same for men who father unplanned children?

When was the last time an absent father faced consequences — be it in the form of physical scarring, loss of career advancement or loss of social status — that matched those of a single mother? When was the last time an absent father had to endure the humiliating and disapproving stares of random passersby, or the hurtful comments of someone who has no idea how hard it is for one person to do a two-person job?

Much of this is because many people have diminished fatherhood (indeed, manhood generally) into a near farcical idea. Our television sitcom dads — from Peter Griffin in "Family Guy" to Doug Heffernan in "The King of Queens" — are fat, bumbling idiots. Our Father’s Day cards are rife with lazy, dumb dad jokes. Our movies depict consequence-free sexual largesse as a rite of passage for young men.

When young men are incessantly told that the pinnacle of manhood is eating, sleeping and ejaculating, is it really so surprising when they shy away from defined gender roles of a higher calling?

We must demand more. Changing social norms is a start.

“It would be great if society could rally around the six or seven key bridges on the path to fatherhood,” wrote David Brooks. “For example, find someone you love before you have intercourse. Or, make sure you want to spend years with this partner before you get off the pill. Or, create a couple’s budget to make sure you can afford this.” (We could even mark the occasion by wearing little gold rings, making public vows and having a big, formal party. Just a thought.)

Yet perhaps a change in the law is also warranted — one which strongly deters men from irresponsible sex. Criminalizing adultery is a good place to start, as is punishing men who shirk their fatherly duties.

Popular parenting blogger Gabrielle Blair had some interesting ideas in a Twitter thread that went viral, including castrating men who cause unwanted pregnancies. “For those of you who consider abortion to be murder,” she tweeted, “wouldn’t you be on board with having a handful of men castrated, if it prevented 500,000 murders each year?”

She meant it as hyperbole (I think), but her point is well-taken. If we are indeed facing a crisis of mass murder in our country, isn’t it about time we ensured everyone is pulling their weight to stop it? If we ban abortion under penalty of law and expect women to embrace the extraordinary responsibilities of pregnancy and motherhood, can we not demand the same of our men?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be a slow news day....CTV should be ashamed to even publish such rubbish...Dodgeball?...I mean..REALLY??  DODGEBALL ??

Does dodgeball teach our kids to be bullies? Researchers say it might.


A good game of dodgeball used to be a celebratory rainy day activity for phys-ed students, but researchers warn that teaching kids to swarm their peers and pelt the weakest ones with balls may reinforce bullying behaviours.

In fact, a team of B.C.-based researchers goes as far as to suggest that dodgeball is a “tool of oppression” that unfairly targets some students.

"Dodgeball reinforces the five faces of oppression defined by (theorist Iris Marion Young) as marginalization, powerlessness, and helplessness of those perceived as weaker individuals through the exercise of violence and dominance by those who are considered more powerful," reads the abstract of the study discussed earlier this week at the Canadian Society for the Study of Education in Vancouver.

For those who are rusty with the rules of dodgeball, the game is simple: One team tries to eliminate the other by pelting their opponents with rubber balls. Those who are hit are banished to the sidelines to watch.

Researchers argue that the game teaches students to dehumanize each other and instills negative values that weotherwise teach children to avoid.

“If someone is going to be a good person when they get older… they need to have practice when they’re young and in school exhibiting those characteristics,” David Burns, study co-presenter and educational studies professor at Kwantlen Polytechnic University, told CTV News Channel.

“If you want people to practise the disposition of ganging up on people, if you want them to practise really enjoying throwing things at people, it can lead to all sorts of other things in the future.”

Though dodgeball has become a popular activity outside of schools, with adult leagues popping up across the country, Burns says the game becomes problematic when forced upon students in an educational setting.

“When you play a game in a school, rather than simply playing at home with your friends or something like that, you’re doing that for a particular educational reason and you really need to know what that reason is,” he explained.

Burns hopes the study will help teachers look critically at what type of behaviours they want to be teaching when choosing activities in the classroom.

“If you’re choosing dodgeball I think you have a responsibility to children to choose it for a particular reason,” he said. “And to be clear about what we are trying to learn from it.”


Edited by Jaydee

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

So a Woman can sleep with 100 men in a year and yet only bear one child a year.  Yet a man can sleep with 100 women in a year and produce 100 children a year.  Perhaps we should be looking harder at where the problem actually lies and place the accountability where it really lies.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

remember religion is about followers.  more followers means more wealth.  Produce more offspring (followers) and you are a good follower.  Hence the religious right opposing abortions.  it reduces the number of potential followers produced.

It is a common thread of all religions to go forth and procreate.

Maybe the problem lies there somewhere.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oberlin College to pay bakery $11M after furthering racism accusations: jury


“I think part of what we did here today is answer the question as to, ‘What are we going to tolerate in our society?’" attorney Owen Rarric said.  “We’re hopeful that this is a sign that not only Oberlin College, but in the future, powerful institutions, will hesitate before trying to crush the little guy.”

In a letter, Varner said that his team would review the ruling, which, according to the New York Post, could result in triple the damages in a hearing next week on punitive damages.

The lawsuit was yet another flashpoint in the nationwide controversy surrounding universities and political correctness. Oberlin, in particular, has provoked conservatives' ire for its apparent deference to politically correct ideas.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear, government protocol provides guidance on flying the Canadian Flag and when doing so, the Flag flies alone on mast.  



Edited by Jaydee

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pro-life film cancelled following threats


The pro-life movie Unplanned has had itsfirst Canadian screening cancelled after alleged threats were made against the Shuswap movie theatre.

Unplanned is going to screen in more than 24 cinemas across Canada for a week starting July 12th. However, the film’s very existence has stirred up a great deal of debate, condemnation, and, now, even threats over its controversial plot.

The film, produced by the Christian production studio Pure Flix and starring Ashley Bratcher, follows the events depicted in Abby Johnson’s memoir of the same name. The plot follows Johnson’s journey from being Planned Parenthood clinic director in Texas to becoming a spirited and steadfast anti-abortion activist and speaker following “the day she saw something that changed everything”.

 As one can imagine, the film has been praised before its release by one side of the political spectrum while being lambasted by the other.

“The film has already drawn impassioned reactions from groups on both sides of the issue in the U.S.,” writes The Star, “where it had an R-rating from the MPAA due to some graphic scenes.” Conversely, the film has retained its original PG-13 rating in Canada.

Since the film’s announcement, pro-choice activists have been protesting hard against the decision to even screen the film, but this will be the first time that any threats of violence have succeeded in stopping the film’s prospective screening.

On Thursday, July 4th, Salmar Community Association board member Chris Papworth confirmed that the planned five-day screening has been cancelled, citing threats made on social media against the theatre’s staff.


We have a track record of showing things from a variety of points of view… we try not to preclude things because of whatever personal opinions may exist on our board or something like that,” Papworth said, adding, “certainly in the past, there hasn’t been an effort to dox employees or, specifically, the general manager, by releasing their personal information on social media and then encouraging people to go after them as the one responsible for some heinous act. We just aren’t prepared for those levels of hostility towards our general manager.”

Hildegard Krieg, speaking for the Shuswap Pro-Life Society, had this to say:

“If they had just come out to picket while the movie is running, I could accept that,” said Krieg. “But I cannot accept that they should actually threaten somebody with violence personally and the family. That is absolutely uncalled for. A peaceful picket, OK, we walk through the picket line. But that is going too far.”

In response to these threats, the Shuswap Pro-Life Society says it “will pursue [a] private screening of [the] movie Unplanned”, and, though disappointed, ultimately respects Papworth’s decision

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


"If even the slightest infraction against what the speech police have deemed correct speech is instantly shouted down with taunts of “racist” then what is left to condemn the actual racists? What do we call the people who won’t hire minorities or beat others up for their religion?"

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ontario family files human rights complaint after six-year-old girl upset by gender theory in school

The following story has its source in an application filed before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario by Jason and Pamela Buffone, on behalf of their daughter “N,” against the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board for discrimination on the basis of gender and gender identity in contravention of the Human Rights Code.

In January of 2018, in a Grade One class at Devonshire Community Public School, part of the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board network, six-year-old N watched a YouTube video as part of her teacher’s lesson plan on gender. 

N is the kind of child, her mother Pamela told me in a telephone interview, that adores school—or did until the particular morning that prompted this column. The video was entitled, “He, She and They?!?—Gender: Queer Kid Stuff #2.” The video contained statements such as, “some people aren’t boys or girls,” and that there are people who do not “feel like a ‘she’ or a ‘he,’” and therefore might not have a gender. The young teacher, whom I will refer to by her initials, JB, continued to teach gender theory throughout the semester. According to N’s feedback to her mother, JB told the children that “there is no such thing as girls and boys,” and “girls are not real and boys are not real.” 

By mid-March, N’s parents could see the lessons were having an impact on their daughter, as she began spontaneously and repeatedly asking them why her identity as a girl was “not real.” She asked if she could “go to a doctor” about the fact that she was a girl. She said she was “not sure if she wanted to be a mommy.” (Ms Buffone explained to N that grown-up women had a choice, but was concerned that the subject was coming up in Grade One gender lessons.)

The Buffones were naturally alarmed by their daughter’s persisting signs of confusion, as she had never previously shown a single sign of discontent regarding her biological reality. Ms Buffone therefore met with JB in March to discuss the impact of the gender discussions on her daughter.

JB, they could see, was very committed to the teaching of gender fluidity as a reflection of “a change within society.” She told Ms Buffone that gender fluidity was the School Board policy, that some children are struggling with the idea that gender is binary and confirmed that the topic of sex change had come up for discussion. She did not appear unduly concerned about N’s personal distress, and did nothing to affirm N’s female identity. 

The Buffones then contacted the school principal, Julie Derbyshire. 

In a telephone call, Ms Buffone says, Ms Derbyshire explained that JB had initiated the lessons to accommodate a child in the class who had expressed interest in self-expression as the opposite sex. (There was in fact a child exhibiting symptoms of gender dysphoria in Grade One of that school, who was being teased on that account. But, according to Ms Buffone, as she later learned, the parents of the child did not want the issue to be addressed by lessons on gender; they merely wanted the other children to be taught to act respectfully and not to bully their child.) Ms Derbyshire did not offer to consult with the school’s “gender specialist” about affirmation of non-questioning students like N.

Determined to elicit a response that addressed the issue substantively, the Buffones pressed on, eventually meeting with the Superintendent of the School Board and the Curriculum Superintendent. According to the complaint, “The School Board did not agree to communicate with parents when sensitive discussions took place, nor did they agree to issue any directive or take corrective action in order to ensure that children of female gender identity were positively affirmed.”

At this point, feeling stonewalled at every step of the hierarchical ladder from bottom to top, the Buffones made the decision to enrol N at another school where, Ms Buffone tells me, she is doing well and where, she has told her family, she is happy she will not have a teacher who says that “girls are not real.” Last October, N reportedly told her mother, “This table is real, and this fan is real, and even if the fan was made out of cardboard, it’s still real.”

Stories related to gender identity in childhood usually have for their protagonist a child who is distressed over the disparity between her or his biological reality and their perceived gender. The scenario often presents educators as enlightened, affirming allies of the child, while the parents, behind the times, so to speak, resist affirmation and cause the child further anxiety. In these cases the injustice to the child seems pretty clear cut to many rights-attuned Canadians. The child’s right to express his or her gender identity trumps the parents’ right to oppose it.

Here we have the opposite case. N’s gender identity is—or was—seamless comfort in her biological skin. She had never questioned that comfort. Suddenly she was told to believe that at any moment, what she believes to be real—that she is a girl—may not be true. How very frightening that thought must be to a child who is not old enough to grasp the abstract concept of gender fluidity. Her parents are the allies here, and her educational environment is where she fails to find affirmation. Why could she not be accommodated as well as the questioning child? Why did this situation have to end up at a human rights tribunal?

It wasn’t, after all, an either-or choice, and a little compromise on the part of JB and her superiors would easily have defused the situation, and alleviated the Buffones’ concern. Why couldn’t JB have explained that discomfort with one’s gender identity does occur, but rarely (fact); that it is often a passing phase (fact); that non-conforming dress and play preferences in childhood are normal and only infrequently indicative of deep or lasting dissatisfaction with one’s biological sex (fact); that most children stop having these doubts when they are teenagers (fact); most important, that almost all children are perfectly happy being exactly what they are (fact) and those children should not worry that they are not “real” boys or girls. Where was the difficulty in saying these things? N would have been reassured, and the one child in the class who was experiencing gender confusion would not have been adversely affected.

The Buffones’ HRTO application concludes that JB “subjected N to ongoing discrimination on the basis of gender and gender identity, by a series of lessons that denied the existence of the female gender and biological sex and undermined the value of identifying as a female.”; ii) “The Principal and School Board perpetuated and reinforced the discrimination that N experienced in her Grade One classroom, as neither Ms. Derbyshire nor any school board official took any corrective action to remedy it.” 

Their requested remedy is that the Tribunal order the Board i) to ensure that classroom instruction “not devalue, deny, or undermine in any way the female gender identity”; ii) to mandate teachers to  “inform parents when lessons on gender identity will take place or have taken place, including the teaching objectives and the materials that will be or have been used for such lessons”; and iii) to pay the Buffones $5,000.00 in general damages “to compensate for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect caused by the discrimination.”

The School Board’s lawyer responded to the application with a request that the application be dismissed “on the basis that the Application has no reasonable prospect for success,” denying the allegations and promising to provide a “fulsome Response should the Tribunal not dismiss this matter by way of Summary Hearing.” 

Citing another complaint against the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, the response pointed to the Tribunal’s finding that the Tribunal did “not have the power to deal with general allegations of unfairness,” and that the facts, even if true, “do not engage any prohibit (sic) ground of discrimination as set out in the [Human Rights] Code.” Also noted was the fact that teachers’ right to teach gender identity is endorsed by the Minister of Education, and that “[t]he age-appropriateness of a classroom discussion does not engage a Code-protected prohibited ground.” In short, even if N was adversely affected by the teacher’s lessons, she has no grounds for redress according to the Human Rights Code.

How will this play out?

The School Board is taking a “letter of the law” approach. They are basically stipulating that the Buffones’ account of N’s experience is factual, but irrelevant. In other words, they don’t deny the lessons had an adverse effect on the child’s psychological well-being. They are simply saying that whether or not she has been adversely affected is not, legally speaking, grounds for a human rights complaint.

But the Ontario Human Rights Commission defines “discrimination” pretty broadly. In our interview Ms Buffone told me: “The Ontario Human rights Code states that a poisoned environment is a form of discrimination. We’re going to provide evidence that the manner in which [JB] was teaching the concept of gender identity resulted in a poisoned environment. The principal further exacerbated the situation in that the only option provided to us was to remove our daughter from the classroom for these lessons, which is exclusionary treatment.”

Will this be as persuasive an argument for the HRTO as it seems to me?

“This is an important case,” says Ms Buffone. “Our government seems to have given teachers carte blanche in terms of how they teach this concept [of gender identity]. If this is an example of how it can be taught, I think it’s in the public interest for the HRTO to weigh in on it. Teachers are providing a public service and have a duty of care to all of their students, just as the HRTO has a responsibility to all of Ontarians. I think this case is a good example of why we need to set ideology aside when dealing with human rights.” 

If the Buffones win their case, it will set a precedent that may have far-reaching consequences for the teaching of gender issues in Ontario’s elementary schools. The HRTO will be very conscious of the potential fallout from their decision. For that reason, the cynic in me fears the dice are loaded against the Buffones. I very much hope to be proven wrong.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this