Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Children are our future


The title of this post is so mundane, it really is a no-brainer.
However, the western world is acting in a way that completely denies that simple truth.

Daniel Greenfield, aka Sultan Knish, gave a talk at a recent Freedom Centre's conference.
Take a listen, he is refreshingly common-sense, speaks in ordinary terms that all of us can understand. But he is alarming. His talk is introduced as "This is no time to mince words."

http://sultanknish.blogspot.ca/2015/12/two-talks-on-muslim-migration.html


There is a saying that one is a socialist in one's youth, and then becomes a conservative in one's older years. That is certainly the case for myself, for my husband. We were in our late teens and early twenties in the hippie era, when people questioned the establishment, the capitalist system, the war policies of the west. And there were real problems with Western ideology.

But the group acceptance of socialist ideology that has taken place in the West is far more problematic. As Greenfield says the refugee problem was caused by socialist policies and it is being made worse by those same socialist policies. Bleeding heart liberals are not solving this problem. They are becoming doormats to a wave of culture that will fundamentally change the Judaeo-Christian foundation of the West.

It is not just economic bankruptcy that we will be facing, but the root of this is our ideological bankruptcy. As Greenfield says, we care more about our ideology of climate change and diversity than we do about our children. We aren't having children because we don't care about them and we don't care about our future. It will be someone else's problem.

He ends with a stern warning that, if the West does not begin to reverse its demographic decline, it will become Europe in a very short time. And that means, have kids.

I don't even know how to begin to talk about this with my immediate friends. Tomorrow I will have lunch with two women who have exactly one child each. And the following week, I will meet with a group of friends, six in total, who have a total of nine children, with a total of 15 grandchildren. Ten of those grandchildren are mine. They just don't get it. They didn't have enough kids, so their kids aren't having enough kids, and that doesn't go on forever. The demographic end game is almost here.




















Wednesday, December 9, 2015

Trump and Muslims


Donald Trump has set off fireworks with his proposed ban on all Muslims entering the US. Sure, it is offensive, but Trump is reacting to the bending-over-backwards that the Obama administration has been doing for seven years now.

Mark Steyn quoting Christopher Hitchens:

We must put an end to one-way multiculturalism.


In other words, try starting a gay bar in Riyadh, or for that matter, an Anglican Church. Multi-culturalism only works one way: they (i.e. the Muslims) get to bring their culture into ours, they don't want ours over there.









Thursday, December 3, 2015

Obama's Promises


We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrefKCaV8m4

That is what Barack Obama said just prior to being elected President of the USA.  And this is one promise that he has kept.

The latest massacre in San Bernardino CA is an attack by Muslim extremists, there is no doubt about that. They just aren't calling it that yet, and I doubt the President ever will.

I guess Syed Farook and his wife felt "rebuked" by president Obama and the other world leaders who are meeting in Paris to avert climate change, something that Obama said was a cause of such attacks. Or perhaps they will say it was just another case of "workplace violence."

ISIS has come to call on America, as they promised they would. Even though ISIS hasn't taken credit for this latest incident, they are applauding it and as terrorist exports are saying, this is the new phase of terrorism. This is the ISIS call to perpetrate terrorist acts in various parts of the world and some individuals are responding successfully to that call. One expert last night said that a recent poll of 100 mosques in the USA revealed that 80 of those mosques either encourage jihad or have literature available for those who are interested in it. Will President Obama see that as the threat that it is, or will he continue to say Islam is the "religion of peace" despite the fact that almost all terrorist acts are committed by people with names like Syed or Mohammed or Hussein?

This is an America that is quite different from the America of just a decade ago. Obama has managed to make fundamental changes to the country and he has insured that these changes will continue after he leaves office.

Obama still has not used the phrase "Islamic extremism". A cursory read of his upbringing reveals that, while he may not be a Muslim himself, he is very sympathetic towards the Muslim world. I think that he looks at his past with great fondness, an ignorant and dangerous nostalgia that makes him blind to the reality of the Muslim world.  His childhood memories lead him to conclude that "everything is better in the Muslim world". He certainly does not convey the same attitude of kindness and favour to the Christian world. I doubt that he will ever be able to see the violence of Islamic extremism with an unbiased eye, just as some children can never admit that their dysfunctional family is not normal.

Immigration:  The open-door policy of Obama's Democratic presidency gives illegal immigrants a pass. (and the latest Syrian immigrants whom the FBI says can't be vetted properly are due to begin arriving next week). Those immigrants are being located in "red" states (i.e. states that voted Republican) with the goal of turning those states "blue" (Democratic). Even though I find Ann Coulter too harsh, I think she is right that this will succeed in making it practically impossible to ever elect another Republican president in the USA. It is a well known fact that immigrants and their children, when they get the right to vote, invariably vote democratic. There are some exceptions, of course, but the majority vote Democratic.

http://www.alan.com/2014/07/14/allen-west-obama-secretly-dispersing-illegal-immigrants-in-red-states-to-turn-them-blue/#

Why do they vote that way?  They are enticed by all the hand-outs. Unlike Senator Marco Rubio, whose parents came to the US as legal immigrants and worked hard at blue-collar jobs to get ahead, the new crop of immigrants may not find jobs if they are looking, but they will be given free health care, food stamps, aid with housing, the list goes on. Wouldn't you vote for the party that ensured your well-being? Would you bite the hand that feeds you?

One in seven Americans now has to use food stamps to get their basic needs.
In 1969, the average participation in the SNAP program stood at 2,878,000. In 2014, average participation grew to 46,536,000 showing an increase of 1516.96 percent.
While the president may boast that the unemployment rate has fallen, in actual fact real unemployment has increased since vast numbers of Americans have simply stopped looking for work. And the push for increasing the minimum wage is a reflection that flipping burgers at McDonalds is now considered the job that supports a family.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevemoore/2014/10/06/under-obama-one-million-more-americans-have-dropped-out-of-work-force-than-have-found-a-job/

Then there was Obama's push for Obamacare, the so-called health care plan that would provide health coverage for those who didn't have it. There are countless stories of how the actual numbers of insured has not increased, and many who had coverage they liked, are now facing higher costs for their coverage and they may not even be able to keep their doctor.

Yet, Obama continues to stand before Americans and the world with arrogance, proclaiming that his strategies will work, we just have to wait long enough to see. It will take time. He will be gone from office by then, scooping up huge speaking fees as he pulls a Bill-Clinton act.

I don't understand why people can't see through this. I just don't understand how people can't see that "the emperor is wearing no clothes." Whatever you think of Vladmir Putin, he sees through this President. Which may not be a good thing for us.

Unfortunately the costs of this presidency are going to be huge. How to undo the damage Obama has done, both at home and abroad, will be a monumental task for the next president, provided that president isn't Hillary Clinton.

He has kept his promise to fundamentally change America. What is disturbing is that the chain of events that he has put into place will continue after he has gone. That is the fundamental change he hoped to accomplish. No longer will America be the land of opportunity for those who wish to seek a better life for themselves and their families, but it will be the land of hand-outs, of freebies, of unrest in the youth who have no future to look forward to, a land that will have lost its founding principles. Obama will have succeeded in making America just like all the other countries in the world, just another country amongst others, rather than the beacon of freedom that it has been. I think that was his goal all along.





















Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Don't Blame Pro-Lifers


Those who support abortion are claiming that the shooter in Colorado was provoked by rhetoric from pro-life advocates. Apparently the recent exposure of Planned Parenthood's practices of selling fetal body parts to researchers has been over the top, and so the actions of Robert Dear are attributed to the pro-life movement.

Anything to distract from what is really going on inside those PP clinics. I thought, as I watched the news reports that showed women being escorted out of the clinic to the safety of police vehicles, "was one of them in the middle of an abortion?" If yes, and quite likely that is the case, then there is another body that isn't being counted amongst the dead.

It’s interesting, isn’t it, how the Left functions. If an Islamic terrorist shoots up a theatre, he is “not a real Muslim” and “not following the peaceful tenets of True Islam.” However, if some strange nutcase opens fire outside a Planned Parenthood and proceeds to murder a pro-life pastor police officer, immediately we are all to assume that this person is definitely a Real Christian, and represents All Christians.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/the-pro-life-movement-does-not-have-to-apologize-for-the-violent-actions-of

In the US, critics are accusing Carly Fiorina of stoking the flames of madmen such as Robert Dear, Dr. Ben Carson has actually called for the cooling of rhetoric on both sides, and in Canada, our own pro-choice voice Joyce Arthur wrote on Facebook that, while it is too early to speculate on Dear's motive, it is obvious what that motive was.

Never miss a chance to deflect the spotlight when it is being shone on your own evil deeds.

We will not allow Planned Parenthood and the abortion movement to climb atop a “moral high ground” created from the chopped-up body parts of human beings they have dismembered to smear the pro-life movement with accusations of violent rhetoric. The abortion industry, by their own admission, is killing human beings....
It’s impossible to deny that Dear hurt the pro-life movement. Regardless of his motives, Planned Parenthood now gets to play the victim and pretend that they are not the purveyors of violence, but the recipients of it. They can unleash hell on pre-born boys and girls day in, day out, filling freezers and Stericycle trucks with headless children and severed limbs—and then turn around and accuse a movement dedicated to exposing and stopping these horrors with “violent rhetoric.” Sorry, but that’s not “violent rhetoric”—it’s a description of what Planned Parenthood does, and often in their own words.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/the-pro-life-movement-does-not-have-to-apologize-for-the-violent-actions-of











Monday, November 30, 2015

Two Sides of the Same Coin


I love the way Matt Walsh spells things out in black and white:
There should be less of that in response to murder? We should be less passionate in our defense of innocent life when innocent life is destroyed? Let me get this straight: someone murdered because we said people shouldn’t murder, so now we should stop criticizing people who murder so that people won’t murder? That’s a point of view too incoherent to entertain even if I was inclined to make an attempt....
Planned Parenthood would like to pretend that Robert Dear reveals something about the pro-life cause, but that is demonstrably untrue. He clearly did not do what we do or what we encourage others to do, because all we do is strive to end the butchery and victimization of the innocent, and we urge others to do the same. He did not follow our cue in that regard. No, he followed theirs. He did what they do, which is why I detest his actions, and why I detest theirs, and why they are really two sides of the same hideous coin.

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/abortionists-and-planned-parenthood-shooter-are-just-two-sides-of-the-same-coin/







Monday, November 2, 2015

Mass in Quebec


Travelling between provinces is not recommended on weekends when there is a time change. It is just too confusing.

That said, I left Nova Scotia early Saturday morning and arrived to stay the night in Edmunston NB. I had checked on mass times at the cathedral there and was set to go to Mass at 9:15 am and then hit the road for Ontario.

I had forgotten that this meant a double whammy. This weekend, we observed Daylight Savings time which means turning the clocks back on Saturday night (actually early Sunday morning, at 2 am) in order to get an extra hour of daylight in the mornings. Kind of sad that this means losing an hour of daylight at the end of the day, and night now drops down on us at 5 pm.

Even though I took French in high school, I still get confused by basic differences. Like thinking "est" means west since it is just missing the w.  This resulted in taking Highway 30 east rather than west when I got to Montreal. But I also made an error in NB when reading the sign outside the basilica for Mass times. One sign in French, one in English and I somehow thought "great, there is a 7:15 am Mass Sunday morning as well as 7:15 pm on Saturday" - no stupid, you just saw 7:15 written in both English and French and concluded there were actually two different masses.

So this means I woke up early Sunday morning, went to the basilica and wondered why no one showed up but me. Duh, when I realised my stupid mistake, I debated whether to wait in Edmunston for the 9:15 mass or head towards Quebec and find a mass there. I figured there was plenty of time and there would be plenty of churches in Quebec so off I went towards Riviere de Loup.

I had no clue of that small city, but it is built on a hillside and you can actually look for steeples and head towards them. So I easily found one church, which had no signs at all for Mass times. The place looked deserted and I wondered if it was closed. I headed towards the next steeple in the distance, and saw that this church had mass at 10:30 which would be just great. So then it was off to find Tim's for breakfast.

What I failed to realise was that the clocks go back at the Quebec border and I had in fact lost two hours on Saturday night, not just the one I had accounted for. Tim Hortons in Riviere de Loup had two clocks, both with different times and I was really puzzled as to the real time.

Final result was that I just had to do the wait for Mass in Riviere de Loup and ended up in the first church for a 10:15 Mass. I got there at ten to nine, so plenty of time for personal prayer, gazing at all the stained glass windows and the stations of the cross. Quebec churches are beautiful and someone is keeping them up well inside. The floors gleamed and it looked very well cared for. Probably a team of lay people who are doing all this work.

Mass was incredibly short for a Sunday mass. I timed the homily, five minutes exactly and read from a script, none of which I understood. Bad music, sorry but a young adult choir with an organ that sounds like French dance songs is not very inducive to prayer or worship.

And of course, the problem we see everywhere but perhaps even worse in this once-Catholic province. A church filled with people upwards of 60 years old. I could count on two hands the number of people under 50.

What is the future for this church and all the others like it? Without a younger generation bringing up the rear, they will be abandoned. There isn't the money to pay for the upkeep and there certainly isn't the manpower to do the work required to maintain them.

Definitely a smaller church on the horizon, as Pope Benedict foretold. Not everywhere, I know there are some churches experiencing booming attendance and there are some parishes that are having great growth. We even have one of those in Halifax - St. Benedict's parish in Clayton Park. But the vast majority are declining in numbers, in financial means, and in the necessary manpower to keep them open. I won't even mention the lack of young priests to take over, that one is perfectly obvious.

A sad state of affairs. I wonder what is down the road for our church. Whatever it is, it is coming soon in the next 10 to 15 years.









Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Entitled to it


Justin Trudeau's first decision as Prime Minister is to spend $10 million to renovate the official residence at 24 Sussex Drive.

Now he lived there once before, I think he might actually have been born while his parents were in residence there. So perhaps this is a case of going back to someplace from your childhood and being surprised that it is smaller and shabbier than you remembered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZwgKPDLpxc#t=26

 
 
That's our tax dollars - 10 million of them to renovate! That would buy 50 houses at $200,000 a piece. 50 families housed in middle income housing.
Do you think he might feel the slightest bit "entitled", kind of like inheriting the throne?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 




Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Refugee Crisis



The refugee/migrant crisis is unbelievable. And the answer is not the bleeding heart response of welcoming them into all countries.

How will this end?

It seems that Angela Merkel made an incredibly naïve move when she said the door to Germany was open to refugees. Who can handle the masses and the problems that come with them?
The extraordinary aerial photo of a column of refugees and migrants tramping through the fields of Slovenia may come to symbolize the moment the EU began to fall apart. The irony can be lost on no one: it was in order to prevent such scenes happening again in continental Europe that the alliance was forged in the first place in the late 1950's. Yet here we are more than half a century later facing the prospect of thousands - maybe hundreds of thousands - of displaced people freezing and starving in the grasslands of eastern Europe as winter closes in.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11955742/We-are-seeing-the-last-dying-days-of-open-frontiers-in-Europe.html


















Thursday, October 22, 2015

Feminism a la Quebec



Who knew? in the province of Quebec, a woman cannot change her name when she marries.

... in Quebec, since a 1981 reform of the civil law, women are not permitted to adopt their husband's name at marriage, not even if they apply for an official name change.
 Procedures for any formal name change are very strict in Quebec, and the decision is up the director of civil status. It requires a serious reason, such as difficulty of use due to spelling or pronunciation, or bearing a name that is mocked or that has been made infamous.
The civil law reform took place shortly after the creation of the Quebec Charter of Rights in which equality between men and women was clearly stated, said Alain Roy, a family law professor at the University of Montreal.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=fc11876a-804c-40cd-9d9f-6825268d4937&k=54069

Well, c’est la loi as we say in French – this is the law and we have to obey it. The Quebecois married after April 2, 1981 do not have the right to change their names (article 393 of the Civil Code of Quebec).

I was myself very frustrated to find it out. In many countries for generations it is normal for the wife to take her husband’s name. Or at least she has this choice. Unlike most of the countries in the world and unlike the federal government of Canada, the laws of the Province of Quebec, based on the name stability principle, say that marriage is not a reason for changing your name and no matter how many times a person gets married, there is only one name that should be used, the one you are born with.
http://theblog.artim.ca/life-in-canada/taking-your-spouse%E2%80%99s-name-is-illegal-in-quebec/

The law doesn't seem that clear to me. #3 says      "Everyone is entitled to rights of personality, such as the right to life, inviolability and integrity of his person, the respect of his name, reputation and privacy." I presume this is the one that pertains to name changes.  Seems like this should be easy to challenge. 
http://ccq.lexum.com/ccq/fr#!fragment/art393

At the heart of it, this is so anti-family.



























 

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Post Election Thoughts


A woman said to me today that she was ecstatic about the election results. My jaw nearly dropped. She is a devout Catholic and she went on to say that the Spirit was really moving yesterday for so many people to vote all the same way. I asked her "which spirit?"

She confirmed what I had already suspected. Catholics, by and large, vote Liberal. They simply don't know, or perhaps don't care, that the Liberal party is 100% pro-choice since Justin Trudeau declared that all Liberal members of Parliament must vote pro-choice on any bills that come up in Parliament.

When I told her this fact, she replied "aren't all the parties the same?"  Well, not exactly. At least if you are a Conservative member of Parliament, you are allowed to vote according to your conscience.

It confirms to me another point: people don't really know what having a conscience and acting according to one's conscience is. At least, it doesn't seem to matter one whit.

As Charles Krauthammar said tonight on Fox News, Canadians have elected the Liberal party for almost 100 years of their existence as a country. The Liberal party is the default party.

Why is that? I have a theory that will be sure to get me called racist. And I may be completely out to lunch on this. I admit that. But I think Canadians feel some kind of obligation to the province of Quebec. They hesitate to offend Quebecers. Since most Liberal party leaders are Francophones and most come from Quebec, electing that party is a nod of assent to that province.

Why this need to appease Quebec? It is baffling.

One pro-lifer told me that the reason the pro-life movement doesn't get anywhere in Canada is because they are held back by the position of Quebec on this issue. Quebec has the highest number of abortions in the country; it also has the highest number of common law relationships; and many of those don't even live together. Isn't that kind of weird?  People who live together as a couple, but don't want to share the same physical space. Sort of let's have our cake and eat it too. Commitment is just too much, so let's have the fun parts of the relationship, but as for getting on with the rest of life, I'd rather do it solo, thank you very much.

Is this part of the reason Canada is so odd when it comes to matters of real importance? We are somehow held hostage by this province that lives according to its own rules. Quebec is a little country to itself, a kind of token France in the middle of America. It has abandoned its religious heritage and is far left on every moral issue, and expects the rest of us to follow its lead.

Enough, if this is what is going on in this country, I would rather we split. Give them their independence and let them go on their merry way. Because the rest of us don't want any part of it. I should say I don't want any part of it, I shouldn't speak for anyone else at this point.
















Monday, October 19, 2015

Harper Hate


My husband said a colleague of his walked into his office today and said "now don't be voting Conservative". I am so impressed by my husband's response: he actually engaged the guy in a conversation, beginning with the fact that neither the Liberal party or the NDP will allow their members to vote in the affirmative on any pro-life bill, in effect stripping away the meaning of their vote.

If you can't vote according to your conscience, why would you even become a member of Parliament?

His colleague hadn't really considered that aspect of things. In fact, as Ezra Levant says, the academic elite almost universally oppose Harper. As Ezra says, "they suffer from Harper-derangement syndrome". Ask them why they hate Harper and their reasons are rather flimsy.

The good side of Nick's conversation with his colleague is that this other fellow now wants to read Alexis de Toqueville. Way to go, quiet husband of mine. You have more guts than I do.

So check out Ezra's video "Why I'm voting Conservative" and hopefully a few of you haven't voted yet.

http://www.therebel.media/why_i_m_voting_conservative

When I went to vote, I noticed that the polls were busy. And I heard that the advance polls were even busier. It seems that many people are turning out to vote. And that makes me uneasy. I fear a landslide of support for Justin Trudeau, the Liberal leader who has only worked a normal job for a a total of mine months of his entire life. A scary thought if he should be elected.
















Friday, October 16, 2015

The non-inspiring Canadian political scene


Monday is the federal election day here in Canada. With many advance polling stations now open, lots of people have probably already voted.

This past week, I noticed that the bulletin of St. Mary's Basilica church listed a resource for information pertaining to the election.

http://www.cpj.ca/

This links to the website of Citizens for Public Justice, an organization based in Ottawa that consists of two policy analysts and a 14-member board of directors who determine which issues they should focus on.

I scanned the website, under the heading of 2015 election bulletin and noticed the glaring absence of any reference to abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or conscience rights. I emailed the contact person and was told the following:

You are right that we did not include issues of abortion, euthanasia, or conscience rights there. CPJ is a membership organization, where our members and 14 person National Board of Directors set out what we should be working on. We only have two Policy Analysts, and cannot possibly cover every important issue. So we need to choose and focus – and for the last decade or so, and for the last three elections at least – we have been mandated to develop expertise where other faith-based groups are not engaged at the federal level. Those issues of our focus have been poverty in Canada, climate justice and refugee rights.

He also stated that most churches have already stated their position on these issues and there was no need to repeat this with their resource. He also said that several groups were working around the election with these issues, so I should rest assured that these were indeed being covered.

I emailed him back and told him that I did not think that most churches had made public their policies on these issues, in fact quite the opposite. When the issue of abortion is raised, the majority of church clergy turn the other way and change the subject.

The issues of poverty, "climate justice" and refugee rights are issues that no one is ever going to get mad at you for. As long as you admit that these are justice issues, you are on the politically correct side. And whatever you do will ensure that your efforts will be approved, even if they cost you next to nothing.

Try raising the issue of abortion and see how much affirmation you get. Well, lots if you are pro-choice as was obvious in the all-candidates' debate on women's issues here in Halifax. If anyone were to stand up and admit to being pro-life, they would have been boo-ed out of the auditorium.

The issues of abortion, end-of-life issues, and conscience rights touch on one's personal morality and beliefs. And they cost you big time. Support the right to life of the unborn, and you are seen as the enemy of women and everyone's sexual freedom, which is a foundation of today's degenerate culture. Suggest that political candidates should be able to vote according to their conscience, or that doctors and nurses should be able to refuse to cooperate in procedures that go against their conscience, and you will be told that you are putting personal beliefs ahead of what the majority of people want. Therefore you are un-democratic.

This atmosphere of political correctness in Canada has produced silence around issues that are crucially important to our moral character.

Just tune in to the Republican debates in the US, and ask yourself where is our Ben Carson or our Carly Fiorina or Mike Huckabee?  We don't have one.

And until organizations like Citizens for Public Justice realise that all issues must be on the table and all issues must be discussed with our political candidates, we won't have any Carsons or Fiorinas or Huckabees. They aren't allowed here.

Canada, from cradle to grave, the state will look after you. So just pay your taxes and keep your mouth shut. It is so much easier that way, isn't it? Save your indignation for "climate justice", whatever that means, and get enraged along with every other Canadian. It won't hurt you one bit.









Tuesday, October 13, 2015

A Challenge to the Supreme Court


A group of 60 scholars, mostly lawyers, led by Princeton's Robert George, are launching a challenge to the Supreme Court ruling that made same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states.

And the precedent they cite is none other than Abraham Lincoln in the Dred-Scott decision.

After listing the negative societal consequences of making same-sex marriage binding throughout all states, they make these statements.

We stand with James Madison and Abraham Lincoln in recognizing that the Constitution is not whatever a majority of Supreme Court justices say it is. 
We remind all officeholders in the United States that they are pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the will of five members of the Supreme Court. 
- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/is-obergefell-binding-no-say-60-scholars/16993#sthash.IQKPIvmQ.dpuf

Kudos to these fellows. I wish them every success. It is about time that someone challenged the Supreme Court and questioned how a small group of people can make legislation that is binding on all citizens.

Now if only someone would do the same in Canada. Unfortunately, we have a problem here: a lack of a Constitution like that of the US. We don't have the rights listed as definitively as they do. But there should be some way to challenge our Supreme Court here as well.





Thursday, October 8, 2015

Synod news you aren't hearing on any Catholic websites



Syriac Catholic Patriarch Ignatius Ephrem Joseph III Younan asks: “Why, we ask the western world, why not raise one’s voice over so much ferocity and injustice?”
 The Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch Gregory III has also said: “I do not understand why the world does not raise its voice against such acts of brutality.”

Here is why: “Talk about extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally might undercut the positive achievements that we Catholics have attained in our inter-religious dialogue with devout Muslims.” — Robert McManus, Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester, Massachusetts, February 8, 2013
 That’s right, it’s all for the sake of the spurious and self-defeating “dialogue.” Bagnasco should ask his colleagues in the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. He should ask bishops like McManus, Kevin Farrell, Jaime Soto and others why they move actively to silence and demonize voices that tell the truth about this persecution. He should ask them why the U.S. Catholic bishops tolerated dissent from so many core Catholic dogmas for decades, but move as ruthlessly as any Grand Inquisitor to suppress dissent from the idea that Islam is a Religion of Peace, which isn’t even a dogma of the Church. He should ask them why they are abandoning their Middle Eastern brethren and keeping their own people ignorant and complacent about the jihad threat.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/10/vatican-synod-syriac-catholic-patriarch-appeals-to-west-not-to-forget-the-christians-in-the-middle-east

For the sake of dialogue? For fear that the persecutions faced by Christians elsewhere will come a little too close to home, I think.






The unintended consequences of mass migration



Ezra Levant, a bold brave voice in politically correct and cautious Canada.


There is plenty of evidence that this mass migration is not a refugee crisis, but an insurgence of Islam into the west. And it would seem that it is Germany's "mea culpa, mea maxima culpa".






















Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Jim Enos in Debate on the Burqa and on Abortion


 
Impressive, simple and firm, Jim has the final answer to both men.
 
 
 
 
 


Monday, October 5, 2015

Concerning the Refugee Crisis


I was going to post this the other day, but was advised to wait a while. I think it needs to be out there, even if my readership is small, perhaps it will be forwarded to others. It is important.

I have just begun to read www.jihadwatch.org regularly since I am concerned about the refugee crisis in Europe. I first heard Robert Spencer on Michael Coren's daily show, he was a weekly guest, but now that Coren is off the air, I have to seek out Spencer in other ways.

Many call him "Islamophobic" and a right-wing bigot. I don't think that is at all true. Spencer is a Maronite Catholic, a man well versed in Islamic writings and theology. He has made it his life's work to know Islam inside and out. And he perceives a very real and present danger with the flood of refugees into Europe.

 
By the way, the American Congress of Bishops pulled their representative who was to attend the annual Lutheran Conference in Dallas TX in August of this year, when they learned that Robert Spencer was to be the keynote speaker. Why did they not want him to be heard? This man is not a nutcase, he may be alarming but that could be because he has a warning to give.

I heard that our diocese here in Nova Scotia is preparing to sponsor one Syrian family per parish. For a total of 100 families. I sincerely hope this is not true.

Call me Islamophobic, but there is ample evidence that caution should be used when bringing in refugees from Muslim countries.

 
 
 
Mrs Merkel’s offer last month to accept all refugees from war-ravaged Syria opened the floodgates. More than a million migrants are expected this year alone, the bulk of them far from genuine asylum seekers. There is now deepening disquiet in this Christian country, dotted with churches, that it is being overwhelmed by people of a different religion and culture.
Some of the tales being told in Germany may just be xenophobic scaremongering. But there is no doubt that the country is grappling with a major culture clash as migrants pour in at the rate of 100 an hour or more. 
- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/09/europe-under-siege-gangs-of-muslim-men-roaming-the-streets-young-women-being-told-to-cover-up.html/#sthash.xrz48Svg.dpuf

People seem to be blissfully ignorant of the fact that a wave of refugees coming from a radically different country than your own is going to change your country forever. While the Christian teaching emphasizes compassion for the homeless and especially for the refugee, there really is a great danger in opening one's home country up to a group of people whose values are so very different from yours.

There is a naivety amongst many people whose hearts are in the right place. They really do wish to help the downtrodden and who fits that description better than a refugee family fleeing their country because of war? But compassion must be tempered with wisdom. As Jesus said "the poor you will always have with you". That is not an instruction to ignore the plight of the poor, but it is a statement that we shouldn't be surprised by the presence of poverty and of suffering. It will always be there. It doesn't mean that we have to be bleeding hearts every time we hear about it.

There is a call for prudence and wisdom in dealing with the refugee crisis. Amongst those refugees are people who do not wish us good. And we have a duty and a right to protect ourselves against the kind of violence that they may bring upon us. Amongst the refugees are those who are willing to advance the Islamic agenda of converting the whole world to Islam and that means converting the infidels. Guess who that is? 































 


Saturday, October 3, 2015

Sheep without shepherds




The Alberta Catholic school board has stated that it will not follow the counsel of Archbishop Richard Smith on sex education and the policies concerning transgendered students, but will instead follow the program put forth by the government, a program that leaves transgendered students just where they are without the benefit of Catholic teaching on sexuality.


“I’ve had to search my conscience and decide which master I’m going to follow, and it’s the kids. I’ve chosen the kids and it puts me out of communion with the local ecclesial authority,” stated Edmonton Catholic School board trustee Patricia Grell to the Edmonton Journal.

“No one can interfere spiritually with another person ... be it teachers who are using contraception and going to communion, we have to respect that’s their decision,” she said.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/alberta-catholic-school-board-prepares-to-pass-extreme-transgender-policy-d

Compare Grell's statement to the following sentences from the Winnipeg Statement of 1968 when the Conference of Canadian Bishops decided to defy the teachings of Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Humanae Vitae and give Catholics a wide berth on birth control. 

It recognized that many Catholics, in spite of being bound by the encyclical, find it "either extremely difficult or even impossible to make their own all elements of this doctrine". These "should not be considered, or consider themselves, shut off from the body of the faithful. But they should remember that their good faith will be dependent on a sincere self-examination to determine the true motives and grounds for such suspension of assent and on continued effort to understand and deepen their knowledge of the teaching of the Church."[3] With regard to those in that situation, "the confessor or counsellor must show sympathetic understanding and reverence for the sincere good faith of those who fail in their effort to accept some point of the encyclical."[4]
Paragraph 26 stated: "In accord with the accepted principles of moral theology, if these persons have tried sincerely but without success to pursue a line of conduct in keeping with the given directives, they may be safely assured that, whoever honestly chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience."[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_Statement

The chickens have come home to roost. 






Friday, October 2, 2015

Stand with Israel



I stumbled upon this speech yesterday when I flicked on the tv and was spellbound. This man is a true leader, unafraid to speak truth when people have opposed him in every way.

As he says, "The Jewish people have learned the heavy price of silence.
The days when the Jewish people remain passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over."

Amen, we must stand with Israel against her enemies.






Friday, September 25, 2015

Rick Howe Interview with LifeTour


Today at 12:30 Rick Howe will interview Mike Shouten of LifeTour.

Tune in to 95.7 on the FM dial to hear about the LifeTour campaign across Canada.
The team will be here tonight in Halifax to give a presentation.

Tonight, 7:30 pm
St. John the Baptist Church hall
26 Purcell's Cove Road


If you miss the interview, you can listen to it later. And you can livestream it on your computer at this link as well.


http://www.news957.com/the-rick-howe-show/












Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Canada a democracy? not!


Democracy:  a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

The Supreme Court struck down the prohibition against physician-assisted suicide February 6, 2015, and gave Parliament a year to pass legislation regulating the practice.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/jason-kenney-slams-liberals-and-ndps-extreme-stance-on-abortion-video

Just as they struck down all laws on abortion, the Supreme Court has done the same thing with assisted suicide. Who do these judges think they are?

There has been no referendum on this issue in Canada. It has not been an issue in an election campaign. So how is this democratic?

The NDP calling themselves the New Democratic Party of Canada is a complete sham. They don't know the meaning of the word, and they can't be trusted to represent the people if they don't know what representing means.

Even liberal England had a vigourous debate on assisted suicide and the members of the House of Parliament voted against legalizing it in their country.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/assisted-dying/11857940/Assisted-dying-vote-in-House-of-Commons.html

Where was the debate in Canada?

We have heard of stealth jihad; here we have stealth totalitarianism.












 

Saturday, September 19, 2015

We Need a Law/ Life Tour Halifax


Check out their FaceBook page:

https://www.facebook.com/search/str/we%20need%20a%20law/keywords_topDon'


Next Friday, Sept 25th  at 7:30 pm

St. John the Baptist Church hall

26 Purcell's Cove Road

Halifax, NS



Don't miss it!  







Thursday, September 17, 2015

American Politics

Father Dwight Longenecker posted an article today entitled http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/09/can-catholics-support-carly.html

asking the question Can Catholics support Carly, meaning Carly Fiorina who is moving up quickly in the polls as a Republican possible nominee.

She is impressive. Longenecker states however that Carly, having been raised Episcopalian, is not aligned with any Christian church at the moment. But she has strong conservative values, while lacking political experience. Longenecker concludes that she would make a formidable candidate if teemed with a Catholic, and he names Rubio, Santorum, Bush or Jindal.

I have been rooting for Marco Rubio since he entered the race, and I would definitely back a Rubio/Fiorina ticket. Just making my allegiances known.

Rubio is strongly principled, and of all the candidates I think he is the one who could work best across partisan lines. Santorum and Jindal, while great guys, don't have a chance in this nomination process. And I think Jeb Bush doesn't really want to be in the race, just a feeling that I get from his lacklustre enthusiasm.

I also sense that Rubio doesn't have a huge ego problem. This can be a real obstacle for anyone in the public arena, quelling that ego that always asserts itself. I don't see that in Rubio, but I see a young fresh personality who can actually listen to other people. Not everyone can. Team him up with Fiorina as his vice, and I think they could do a great job leading the most important country in the world.

For those who don't think the US is the most important country, get over it. It is.







Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Who cares about the selling of baby parts?


Matt Walsh nails it:
I don’t want to throw in the towel or abandon all of these hopes, but 10 videos later, it appears I was overly optimistic. The polls tell us public opinion of Planned Parenthood has remained basically unchanged. Those who supported the slaughter of babies before all of this, still do. The disgraceful wimps who were too weak and selfish to have much of a perspective on the matter before all of this, still don’t. The true civil rights champions who gave voice to the voiceless and fought for life and liberty before all of this, obviously still are. There isn’t much evidence that people have crossed over from one category to another. It is a staggering and comprehensible indictment on our culture that 10 videos of abortionists chopping up and selling infants hardly moved the needle at all.

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/planned-parenthood-guts-babies-and-sells-their-organs-but-who-really-cares/













Tuesday, September 15, 2015

See Evil, Hear Evil, It's Evil





This doctor mentions an investigation 15 years ago by Congress on the allegation that PP was selling baby parts for profit and she doesn't want a repeat of that. Hmm, deja vue doctor?







Abortion up for discussion



Canada is one of three nations in the world that has absolutely no law protecting pre-born children. This means that a woman can, legally, terminate a pregnancy at any point during the nine months of gestation. Until the umbilical cord is cut and that baby takes its first breath, it can be targeted for abortion.

Some people are okay with this; I think they haven't really understood what abortion is. Be that as it may, many people are not okay with this once the situation is explained to them. The majority of Canadians don't even know the current state of the law vis-a-vis abortion in Canada.

We need to bring this out into the open. That is the purpose of LifeTour - to open up the discussion about abortion, and in particular, to ask those running for political office where they stand on the issue of pre-born human rights.

Because it has been too long. All restrictions on abortion were struck down in 1988 and the judges of the Supreme Court sent the issue back to the House of Commons, telling them that they needed to enact legislation to restrict all-out abortion in Canada. That didn't happen. Mulroney tried and the effort went nowhere. And no one since then has managed to make any headway on this.

Some valiant souls are keeping this issue before Canadians. Most people simply want to say that the issue is resolved and let's move on. So the question of abortion is not on most people's radar. And in my experience, those who should be leading the discussion, i.e. our pastors and priests and leaders of the Christian community, have backed away from it because it seems to be toxic to them.

Being pro-life is something jeered at in Canada. This is not so in other Western countries; not to the extent it is in Canada. So we must do something, we cannot remain silent. One day, we will look back at this period of our history and realise that we neglected the primary human right - the right to be born.

If you live in the Halifax area, please attend this meeting of LifeTour.

Friday, September 25  7:30-9:30 pm
St. John the Baptist church hall
26 Purcell's Cove Road
Halifax, NS
 
Free of charge, ample parking
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Monday, September 14, 2015

Free Speech in Canada


Ezra Levant is facing another court case, this time because he used the word "crazy" to describe the Alberta Human Rights Commission. What have we come to in this country, that a journalist isn't allowed to use the word "crazy" to describe an institution with which he had personal experience and which really has been rather crazy?

Last week, after attending the candidates' debate in Halifax, it was evident to me that free speech doesn't exist in Canada, not the way it does in the US or even in liberal Britain. This past week, the British Parliament had a robust debate on assisted suicide and the vote came back overwhelmingly to reject it. Imagine the same situation in Canada: Justin Trudeau would tell his party members that they had to vote for such a bill, and so would Thomas Mulcair.

Last night, we had a guest over for dinner and the subject of Ezra Levant's first case before the Alberta Human Rights Commission came up. Our guest had not heard of it, and when he learned that Levant had published the Mohammed cartoons and reported the incident and was then accused of "hate speech", he agreed that he thought it was hate speech and that it could spur a violent reaction in someone. I was speechless.

Since when does relating an event and reprinting already-published cartoons become "hate speech"?

There is a blanket of silence over many issues in Canada. It is as if we have all been told that there are certain things we cannot and must not talk about. There is a tacit agreement that you shouldn't raise certain issues, that you should avoid getting any negative reactions from people, except for the ones that are politically correct.

This frustrates me no end. This is the real reason that Sun News is no longer on the air, it wasn't an issue of money as was stated. No, the real reason is that Sun News dared to discuss topics and to interview people on those topics who hold the politically incorrect view.

Just as Christie Blatchford wrote recently about Linda Gibbons: they "are on the wrong side of the wrong issue".

We need politicians who will dare to speak on topics that have been sidelined, who will dare to make statements that get a strong negative reaction, and they need to be well-prepared so that they can flatten the opposition to their remarks with their fool-proof logic. The logic is there on those issues, and people can be trained to use it. Where are those people? Let's encourage them to come forward and then let's support them with our money so that they can get into positions of power where their voice can be heard.

If we don't, we will be lost as a nation.








Friday, September 11, 2015

All drinking the Kool-Aid


Last night, I attended an all-candidates' debate on the subject of women's issues. In October, Canadians will be going out to vote for our next federal government and this debate was scheduled to showcase the candidates running for election in the riding of Halifax city.



Megan Leslie is the NDP candidate and the sitting MP since 2008, I believe. Halifax is an NDP (New Democratic Party) stronghold. Andy Fillmore is running for the Liberals; Thomas Trappenberg for the Green Party, Irvine Carvery for the Conservatives (Carvery could not attend the debate) and Allan Bezanson for the Marxist-Leninist Party.

The debate consisted of a moderator asking questions of the candidates; they had 2 minutes to respond and anyone who wished to rebut had one minute to do so. It was a lively debate and quite interesting actually. But a few impressions emerged for me.

The sameness of the promises: each candidate seemed to promise more money for women's shelters, more money to help women leave abusive situations, more money for abused women to access childcare and education/job training. In general, the solutions were always more money thrown at the problem.

Upon reflection on this, I was struck by the fact that this is a Band-Aid solution. Not one single candidate spoke of why women are in abusive situations to begin with, or how to solve the problem of abusive men. This makes me think of the ongoing discussion on Fox News where the equivalent American problem seems to be violence against the police and the issue of black on black violence.
Whereas anchors like Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly ask the question: "what is causing the violence in the black community?" , no one here in Canada asks the question: "why are so many women caught in abusive relationships and why are so many men abusive?"

Shouldn't this be the issue? My reasoning is that they can't raise the question because it will bring up the problem of moral values, i.e. the ones we have lost in society. And once again, political correctness raises its ugly ubiquitous head. You can't speak of anything that might sound like a judgment on people's morality.

On another issue, all of the candidates supported free tuition for university students. The question that bubbled up in my mind was "where is all this money going to come from?" At one point, Megan Leslie said "Canada can afford it" when she was speaking of affordable housing as a right for all individuals. She said the same for a $15 minimum hourly wage.

At least, Fillmore rebutted with her on the wage question by pointing out that the NDP plan to put in a minimum wage of $15 would only apply to federal employees, not to people who work at Walmart or Tim Hortons. And that would only be 1% of the total population of working people, or 55,000 people which he said was the attendance at three Moosehead games. I couldn't help letting out a big laugh at that one. Good for him; expose the illusion.

I am not Liberal, by any stretch of the imagination. But Fillmore had another rebuttal to Megan Leslie that made me guffaw. When Leslie stated that the NDP party would bring in $15 per day day-care for all working mothers, Fillmore clarified the issue by stating that their plan would take eight years to implement. "So if you are a parent of a toddler now, or you are thinking about having a child, this will not be of any use to you", Fillmore said. Leslie did not reply to that remark.

Money was the solution for most of the candidates. Well except for the Marxist-Leninist candidate who used all his speaking time to rally the anti-war effort and to blackball anything capitalist. I wanted to ask him to name one single Communist country that was an example for the world to follow. Just name one. Rather, the Marxist-Leninist legacy is one of injustices, abuses, and mass death. I do not understand how anyone could be a Marxist-Leninist, knowing the least bit of history about Stalin and Mao. Mr Bezanson would use his compassionate sympathies far better working one-on-one in the community. Perhaps he does already, but making Communism your platform is just insane given history.

One question I really wanted to ask the candidates was one about demography. With the birth rate at 1.6 children per woman in Canada, we are not even replacing ourselves. How do any of these candidates think that we are going to be able to pay for the free tuition, the pension plans, the affordable housing for all those in need with a shrinking tax base? This never even enters the discussion, but it seems that it is rather critical to consider.

All of our entitlements are paid for by taxation. Unless we are willing to pay higher and higher taxes, (and Canadians currently pay a high tax rate compared to many other countries) how can we offer any of these entitlements to anyone?

The moderator took questions from the audience, but these were written questions and three were pulled out of a hat. That's what they said anyway. The first question was on abortion. Of course, the question had to do with PEI not allowing abortion in that province, to which Leslie said "get on board, PEI". The audience cheered and clapped. It was obvious the majority were strongly pro-choice.

And that was the overall impression of the debate and of those who attended. Sameness of opinion, they were all of the same mind. There was not one single person who raised an issue that might bring out a heckler. They were all trying to appease the voters. As one of my friends said, they have all been indoctrinated by the education system into thinking this way.

No wonder Irvine Carvery was a no-show. He would have been castigated for any right-wing views that he held. And in his absence, there were many calls to get rid of Stephen Harper.

A sorry state of affairs. And once again, I am left wondering who the heck can I vote for?





Fired for his Christian beliefs


When Kim Davis was put in jail for refusing to sign marriage licenses to gay couples, Governor Mike Huckabee and Senator Ted Cruz came to her defense. Huckabee even said he would go to jail in her place if he could.

So where is Canada's Mike Huckabee?

Not a peep from a single politician about Linda Gibbons who has spent more than 10 years in jail for peacefully protesting abortion. And now a Calgary bus driver has been fired because he said he would not drive a city bus that advertised the Calgary "gay pride" event.



https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-christian-bus-driver-fired-after-refusing-to-drive-calgary-gay-pri

This is only the tip of the iceberg. We are going to see more and more stories like this as the gay agenda will not tolerate dissent from their ideology.

However, Christianity actually thrives and grows under persecution. And the more people we see persecuted for their beliefs, the stronger the Christian community will become. Smaller perhaps, but those who stand firm will be stronger. Bring it on!







Wednesday, September 9, 2015

Is this how we treat refugees?


 
There was an uproar in Halifax during the month of August, which I missed, being away on vacation. I might have missed it entirely were it not for getting my hair cut yesterday.

My hairdresser is the wife of the artist, Zeqirja Rexhepi. Rexhepi is a refugee who came to Canada from Kosovo more than fifteen years ago, and the Tall Ships mural at the corner of George and Barrington Streets was one of his first commissions here in Canada. Rexhepi is an accomplished artist with degrees in art; he is not just another "street artist". He has made his living from his art for his entire working life, and has supported his wife and family of six children with his painting.

But the story of painting over the Tall Ships mural has been given short shrift. The mural was commissioned by the Downtown Halifax Business Commission and they were helped by a grant from the city. It was commissioned to commemorate the historic visit of nearly 100 "tall ships" to Halifax Harbour in the summer of 2000. I remember that visit well; dozens of magnificent ships sailed into the harbour, giving the onlooker the sense that we were suddenly eye-witnesses to something from the past. I believe that close to a million visitors walked the waterfront that summer in order to see the ships.

Freak Lunchbox, a business that resides in the building where the mural is displayed, wanted to put up a new piece of art in its place. They felt that the mural was outdated and they wanted something fresh that fit with their business, which is a candy store. From all accounts that I could find, they tried to contact the painter of the mural in the hope that Rexhepi would arrange for moving the mural (which is painted on boards, not on the actual brick wall of the building). They could not reach him, so they went ahead with their plans which were to paint over the mural in black before a new mural could be painted. They had made arrangements with a Montreal artist who was scheduled to fly in and paint the new mural. This entailed the leasing of staging and equipment and I think it also involved hiring other people besides the painter.

The Friday before this was to happen, the daughter of Rexhepi contacted Erin and Jeremy Smith, owners of Freak Lunchbox and asked that they be given a few more days so that the Rexhepi family could remove the mural and have it placed elsewhere. She was told that they were "too late", that the painter was on a tight schedule, his flight and hotel had been booked, that equipment had been leased, etc and that they were going to go ahead with their new plans.

As related to me by the painter's wife, this is what they arrived to see on that fateful morning.


The account seems fairly clear from the various news reports that I read. A company in Dartmouth had agreed to help move the mural, but then they realised the cost of erecting it somewhere else was beyond their means. A GoFundMe account had been set up but it hadn't reached the required $3500 to move the mural. The Rexhepis were prepared to undertake removal themselves but their offer came "too late". The Smiths, owners of Freak Lunchbox, said that they had waited three weeks for a reply from the Rexhepis and hadn't received one.

There is so much more to this story than is being told. And I don't claim to have the whole story either. But from what I could get from Rexhepi's wife, there is a story of heartbreak here that isn't being told.

Zeqirja Rexhepi was an artist in Kosovo who saw his works slashed by soldiers as they tore his country apart in a civil war. And he and his family were displaced, arriving in Canada, with a flood of refugees seeking asylum from their war-torn country. When they arrived in Canada with five of their children, they couldn't even speak English and had to make their way, both of them being self-employed and without much to start up a new life. But they survived.

The Tall Ships was one of the first commissions that Rexhepi got in Canada. He has since done many more murals, but this one is of particular significance to him. Not to mention the fact that the Tall Ships mural has been a wonderful tourist attraction to many visitors to Halifax and a beautiful memory to the residents of Halifax of that wonderful summer of 2000 when our harbour was graced with the beautiful ships from antiquity.

But antiquity and the past, history, memories don't seem to carry much weight in this new scenario. Now it is about "street art" and putting up something "more relevant" to the people who pass by on Barrington Street. It would seem that a mural commemorating a historical event in the life of Halifax doesn't matter as much as having some eye-popping piece of modern art. I wonder how many people take photos of this new mural, compared to the number who took photos of the Tall Ships one?

Or how many will email the artist to tell him that his mural was a highlight of their visit to Halifax and to thank him for his work? Zeqirja has many of those, but now they hurt instead of bringing joy as they did in the past.

What I want to ask is did the Smiths, owners of Freak Lunchbox, take the time to learn the backstory of the Tall Ships mural?  Did they meet with the artist to talk with him about his work and to see if they could come to some sort of agreement? Or did they simply email and then forge ahead with their plans, when they didn't get the response they felt entitled to? Could they not have realised that the artist might have been in shock at news of their plans?  Or that he was subdued into silence as he realised that he simply did not have the money or the means to move the mural himself? That he felt helpless, as indeed he was.

Where was the city of Halifax in this, asks Rexhepi's wife? Why did no one come forward to help? Fighting back tears, she said to me "we left Kosovo because of war; now we see there is war here, but it is a silent one." As refugees, the Rexhepis feel betrayed by their new country. They feel that the original welcome they were given has been retracted. They do not feel welcome any longer.

All because someone thought Rexhepi's art was outdated and should be replaced by something that they preferred. They didn't even ask Haligonians what they wanted. Surely a piece of art like the Tall Ships mural had become a landmark in the city and the residents should have been asked for their input. There is so much more to this story than the simple ownership of a building and the right to do whatever you want with it. Surely some consideration should have been given to the artist and the spirit of gratitude and love that he expressed in his painting towards his newly adopted home.

It pains me to think of this. I could only sense a fraction of the pain of this family as Bea related the story to me. She told me of the comments on Facebook and Twitter about this, most of them full of swear words and supporting the painting of the new mural. She told me, I don't want to hear people say "f..... the Tall Ships" nor does she want to hear her friends say "f.... Freak Lunchbox". With tears in her eyes, she told me that they had left a country ripped apart by war, that it is love and support that matter most to her people, that she doesn't want anyone to be fighting over her husband's art, but that she feels the love and support they once felt in this city have been ripped out from under them.

Ripped apart by someone else's determination that they have a right to do whatever they want with their property, that they can put up whatever artwork they like, that it doesn't matter if many people loved the mural that was there. It is over, it is dated, it is the past, let's move on, nothing to see here as the saying goes.

But I give you exhibit A



 
and I give you exhibit B


And I ask you: which mural will be remembered 10, 20 years from now?

And who will remember Zeqirja Rexhepi and his wife and the artist's joy at being selected to paint this historic mural, a decision that gave him the approval he was seeking in his new life in Canada?
Surely the tears of his wife tell a story of betrayal, of injustice that must be corrected in some way by all of us who once welcomed them here fifteen years ago.
























Saturday, September 5, 2015

One journalist cares

 
She’s a veteran pro-life protester outside Toronto abortion clinics. She’s on the wrong side (the pro-life side) of the wrong issue (abortion) and yet she persists in trying to make her voice heard.


Yet she looked so alone in the back of that squad car. How is it that she can be so harshly punished simply for exercising freedom of expression?
Oh yes, because in this country, when people disapprove of what you say, they will criminalize the speech. It’s not quite Voltaire, is it?

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-this-protester-has-served-10-years-and-seven-months-in-jail-and-no-one-cares










Monday, August 31, 2015

Priests for Life supports WeNeedaLaw




Some in the pro-life community believe that support for incremental legislation is wrong, that it is in effect "throwing babies under the bus". Their reasoning is that it makes a difference between those protected from abortion and those that would be targeted for abortion, dividing the children in the womb into two camps.

However the flaw with this reasoning is that, in Canada, all babies are currently thrown under the bus, since we have absolutely no protection for any child in the womb. Success in bringing in legislation of some sort would have the effect of at least saving some lives, even if we can't save all.

I met Father Tom Lynch this past summer and asked him that very question: what is your position on WeNeedaLaw and incremental legislation? He told me that holding the position that all abortion must be made illegal, since all life from conception is human, is simply unsustainable in Canada. Outlawing all abortion from the moment of conception is just not going to happen. In fact, in Father Lynch's opinion, our current politicians are even less pro-life now than they used to be in the past, and that doesn't appear to be changing. The pro-choice position of allowing all abortions through all nine months of pregnancy is upheld by the majority of MPs. And those who don't agree with that position are, for the most part, silent on the topic.

Despite the wishful thinking that we can change hearts and minds, that thinking is just that - wishful. Reality is quite different. The reality is that abortion is entrenched in our society and most people cannot think of not having abortion; they see it as a solution to the problem of unplanned pregnancies and all the babies that would be born and would have to be looked after by someone, and they don't want that someone to be them.

Throughout all of human history, the law has been a teacher. This is the reason why Moses wrote down the Ten Commandments upon hearing them from Yahweh. The people needed to be told what was right and what was wrong and they needed to know there were consequences for disobedience. In fact, most organizations and societies have rules precisely to keep people informed of which behaviour is good (both for themselves and society as a whole) and which is not.

The same holds true for abortion. Most people under the age of 40 in Canada do not see a problem with abortion because, for all of their lives, abortion has been legal. And what is legal, must be right. This is what the absence of a law does, it conditions people to think that something is morally good and right if it is not disallowed. I have heard young women say to me that abortion must be okay, because it is legal.

Therefore, enacting legislation would have the effect of teaching morality to a population that doesn't seem to be getting much in the way of moral teaching from any other source.

And enacting any legislation with regards to abortion is crucial if we wish to change hearts and minds on this issue. Rather than the other way around, as Harper says "we must change hearts and minds and then we can change the law", I hold that having a law would actually teach many people what is wrong. This is how we teach our children. We don't always expect them to understand the concepts behind the discipline we mete out; oftentimes, particularly with young children, they simply have to be given the boundaries of behaviour in order to make their behaviour conform to what is good for them. Understanding follows behaviour in the majority of cases.

The lack of abortion law has taught Canadians that lives in utero are dispensable. It will take the bringing back of legislation on abortion to begin to inform them otherwise.






Thursday, August 27, 2015

Questions to ask candidates running for election




If the government doesn’t want to
talk about abortion,
why is it willing to make taxpayers fund them?
 
 
 
Do you think it’s right for someone to have
an abortion based on gender?
 
 
 
 
If pre-born babies are not people when victims of crimes,
 what are they when doctors are operating on them prenatally?
 
 
 
 
If you’re really serious about a woman’s right to choose
what she does with her own body,
how do you reconcile that with making drugs illegal,
or drunk driving, or even just being topless in a restaurant?
Don’t we live in a society full of regulations on
what we can do with our own bodies?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Pro-Life Event in Halifax




Please send this information to your friends, especially if they lean toward pro-choice. The founder of this group is a lawyer and you will hear logical arguments for the defense of human life at all stages.
If you wish to engage and ask questions on this issue, you are most welcome to attend. Your views will be respected and you will be engaged in a civil debate - no shouting of slogans, just the logical discussion of the facts.

Halifax, NS  - St. John the Baptist Church on Purcell's Cove Road, Friday, Sept 25 - 7:30-9:00 pm.
Free of charge.


Not sure where you stand on abortion? Or think you know exactly where you stand? This event is a great opportunity to learn where Canada stands on the abortion issue, why abortion needs to be addressed by our elected officials, and how we can work together to ensure pre-born human rights are discussed during the 2015 federal election.

You will listen to stories from the front lines, detailing the cultural shift taking place as Canadians become aware of what abortion does to the smallest members of the human family. You will also hear about three specific laws that would advance pre-born human rights, and that have a good possibility of being passed in the next 3-8 years.

We invite you to learn from our qualified speakers, who will share with you what science says about the pre-born child and whether or not Canadian law reflects this scientific understanding.

If you already know that you want to make a difference for pre-born children in Canada, we invite you to join us as well!

Join us in Halifax to learn more about how YOU can make a difference this election.