Truth in the talk of Dignity

So the Supreme Court of Canada has once again struck down a law that provides protection to human life. By striking down the ban on assisted suicide they aren't protecting society, the opposite is true, this will hurt society even more.
Do we as Canadians not hold the value of all life as sacred?
Is it not self-evident that human beings, by virtue of their humanity, are objectively valuable? Does that value makes them equal in worth to one another?
In every state of life should we not support that value?
The argument people use is the fact that they want to die with dignity. This argument is disingenuous, can you still not have dignity even if you have lost everything else including your health? This is not just an issue for those seeking assisted suicide but also an issue for the vulnerable of society, of which will be the next on the list as is proven by cases in other countries that have opened the door to this. But we can also look closer to home.
One example of this exploitation of the vulnerable is evident in the case of Robert and Tracy Latimer. Because she was severely handicapped he did not think her life should continue so he killed her.
However, because he made the case that it was an act of mercy, he was only found guilty of second degree murder (thought it was clearly premeditated) and given only a two-year sentence (of which only one would be spent in prison).
Eventually his sentence was appealed and he received the minimum ten year sentence.
Because he was in minimum security he was able to complete apprenticeships in prison and still managed his farm.
Apparently disabled people like Tracy are not protected by the law to the same extent as fully autonomous people because they do not demonstrate the same degree of autonomy as others. Understood this way, human dignity is not really for humans – it is dignity for autonomous agents.
If removing choice and control (autonomy) is tantamount to removing dignity, than dignity is subjective and easily lost. Infants, the disabled, seniors, and even people who are sleeping have lost control over themselves.
Another example is a prisoner of war in a concentration camp – what dignity would they have if they lost the ability to make choices in accordance with their aspirations?
If the court is going to be consistent, it would have to conclude that these people have also lost their dignity.
Yet this is contrary to reality. We recognize prisoners of war with medals of bravery and hold them in high esteem for what they went through.
Rather than hoping that their lives be extinguished to preserve them further suffering, we rejoice when they persevere against all odds.
Likewise we treat our grandparents with even greater care when they lose some of the functioning that makes it more difficult to look after themselves.
We also applaud the disabled for their determination. In all of these situations, it is apparent that dignity is not about making a choice to give up.
Rather, it is about facing life with courage, gentleness, kindness, decency, hope, determination, and faith in spite of the circumstances of life.
Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide further will weaken the legal protection for Canada‘s most vulnerable people.
The sad reality is that in countries where euthanasia is legalized, a large percentage of those who die never give their consent.
Others decide for them that their life isn‘t worth living.
For example, the 2009 statistics from the Netherlands that were released show that 550 deaths happened without explicit request or consent.
To add to that, the overall number of euthanasia deaths increased by an astounding 13% over 2008.
Why are these numbers skyrocketing? Who decides when someone no longer has the dignity to continue to live?
In an aging welfare society where seniors and the disabled are increasingly seen as a burden on the state, it is hard to believe that the patient‘s dignity is what determines whether they live.
Using dignity talk to justify this shameful reality reveals that the concept itself is being exploited.
We need to hold truth, respect, and the value of human life paramount in our lives.

Parental rights at risk...

Laurie Blakeman's has introduced 

 "Bill 202, the Safe and Inclusive School Act, is aimed at making all Alberta schools safe, inclusive, and supportive learning environments for every student regardless of sexuality, sexual orientation, or gender identity by:

• Requiring all school boards to develop policies to support students who want to lead and establish gay-straight alliance activities and organizations.
• Repealing section 11.1 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, which requires a parent or guardian be notified if sexual orientation will be discussed in the classroom.
• Referencing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and theAlberta Human Rights Act in Alberta’s Education Act." 

 I thought I would take some time and share with you some concerns I have with Laurie Blakeman's bill 202. 

  This bill is being presented as a bill to make schools safer for kids of the LGTBQ community but through this bill I fear that it might make things worse for other students.  Add this to the fact that this bill includes other statements and exclusions that put parental duties, responsibility, and rights in danger.  I hope that you will see my point and come to the same conclusion that this bill is not a piece of legislation that is required to make schools safer, but actually it undermines the Canadian Charter of Rights and serves to remove Parental rights and bestow more power to the state as liberal socialists are in favour of, and may possibly make schools more hostile for other students if passed. 

  The issues I have are as follows 

1) forcing GSAs on schools boards and parents that may not support clubs of a sexual nature to be part of the school environment. 

2) removal of Parental rights by striking Sec 11.1 from the Education Act. 

3) by tying the Charter of Rights, and the Alberta Human rights Act to the education act undermine the right of home schoolers, private schools, and Public Religious schools to free speech, and also bestow special status to certain groups of people while excluding others. 

Parental duty: 

- we as society have set 18 years of age as legally becoming an adult

- most parents continue to make decisions for their kids as long as they live at home as is their duty to raise and guide them into adulthood. 

-the raising or Education of a child is the fundamental right and duty of parents, not the state nor that of the child being raised. 

- legislating the right of kids to set up GSAs sounds like a good idea but in a country where the rule of the majority is the standard, and that parents, not the kids are responsible for the children's education, having a small number of kids having the right to force a club to be endorsed by a school that the majority of parents may not support is wrong.  Should students, supported by the school board and the majority of the parents of the kids attending that school, wish to set up a club of a sexual nature then yes the club should be allowed. But then the opposite is true as well.  Should students of a school, not supported by the school board nor the majority of the parents of the kids attending that school, wish to set up a club of a sexual nature then the club should not be allowed nor be forced to be allowed. This allows for freedom, parental say, and the principles of democracy to be paramount. 

- we as society have set up an education system to help in the professional education of kids, that being said it is still the Right of parents to have the final say in what their child is being educated on. Should a parent have a problem with any subject they  deem their responsibility to teach, the school system can not and should not interfere with that right. Some topics such as religion, morality, and sexuality are sensitive subjects, ones that many parents deem the responsibility of parent. Thus the clause in Sec. 11.1 must remain in order to legally protect a parents fundamental right to have the final say on what is taught. 

- Sec. 11.1 dictates that the teacher must notify parents prior to discussing religion, human sexuality, or sexual orientation.  

(2) doesn't say anything about informing parents of when it will be discussed. 

The question comes up how will the parent give instruction to leave if they don't know when it will be discussed? 

 By not having prior knowledge to this, a student may only be excused when the discussion comes up rather than not showing up prior to discussion. This can put said student on the spot to leave as per parental request,  and open that student up to ridicule and unneeded peer pressure. This doesn't make the school safer for those students.

- The following is an excerpt from the Albert Home School Assosiation website in regards to Bill 2  a couple years ago that was presented and failed due to vast opposition in which the same issue was presented. 

"Due to the potential legal impact ... , AHEA has taken a strong position denouncing the inclusion of the Alberta Human Rights Act in the Education Act.

Provincial Human Rights Legislations have been studied at length and have been severely criticized by the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms (www.jccf.ca) According to the March 2011 study conducted by John Carpay and Carol Crosson, From Bad to Worse - Examining Restrictions on Speech and Procedural Fairness in Human Rights

Legislation in Fourteen Canadian Jurisdictions ( http://www.jccf.ca/images/From%20Bad%20to%20Worse%20-%20Executive%20Summary.pdf  ), Canadian human rights  legislation has, at best, a ‘bad’ rating for procedural fairness.  Alberta’s human rights legislation is described as among the worst in Canada as a result of its lack of procedural

fairness and its violation of free speech rights.

    The paper discusses Human Rights Commissions and how they function, what they cover, areas of fairness, how complaints occur and how they are treated. The weaknesses

in the Alberta Human Rights Act and how they impede freedom of speech confirm  the legitimacy of concerns expressed by Alberta’s parents regarding imbedding the Alberta Human Rights Act being in the Education Act are legitimate.  

    Finally, an extended column on free speech, posted by Brad Trost, provides clear examples of how Canada’s Human Rights Commissions ‘selectively oppress Canadians who hold small “c” conservative political or religious views.” http://ezralevant.com/Free%20Speech%20by%20MP%20Brad%20Trost%2023JUN08%20.pdf

 This information, taken collectively, provides clear evidence which supports the argument for not enshrining the Alberta Human Rights Act within the Education Act."

If the term " the common values and beliefs of Albertans" isn't clear enough and has the public will to be changed, perhaps rather than entrenching the entire Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the AHRA within the education act, perhaps the more realistic thing would be to entrench the freedoms spelled out in section 2. 

 Bill 202 would then read 

(2) Section 16(1) is amended by striking out “the common values and beliefs of Albertans” and substituting “Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Alberta Human Rights Act”. 

Sec 2.

 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

It's my conclusion that in order to protect Parental rights, ensure that ALL students are protected from mistreatment, and to ensure that our freedoms and fights are protected, this bill can not and should not be supported in its current form or any form similar to it. The right to form an extra curricular club can't trump a Parents fundamental right to dictate what, how and when things are taught to their children. 

I'll see you again.

Cry not for me...
On second thought shed a tear
And let people see
For grief is not something to fear.
We smiled
We loved
We sang
We danced
Ups and downs
Forwards and back
We lived.
And I still do
Both in your heart and mind
But more than that
I reside in pure peace
No pain
No hurt
No sickness
No sadness
Love and joy
Peaceful and happy
Heaven
Our hearts were joined
Still they are
The love we both shared
Takes us home
In time
In faith
In love
In peace
We shall see one another
In the arms of the Light
Soon enough,
Now I ask
Smile
Cry not for me...

With regret

The nomination for the Wildrose party has opened for Stony Plain riding, after much deliberation I've come to the very hard thought out decision to step back and remove myself from contention at this time.
 This has not been an easy decision, circumstances in my life have arisen that makes this the only move that is right for me and my family at this time. Trying to raise a young family of four kids while balancing a booming business, staying evolved with church and community charities and trying to run a campaign have been too much and I must put the needs of my family first.
 I would like to thank all those who decided to support me, your words, support and well wishes were kind and generous! Perhaps one day when my family is a bit older and time restraints not so tough I can be privileged to serve my community as a public servant. I have been in contact with the Party and they have expressed their thanks and hope that I stay involved which I would be happy too!
 Once again I can't say thanks enough for all the support I received and look forward to continuing the relationships I've made in the community through this process!

Russ

Making it Official

I believe we can do better.

To me better means being different than what we have. We need honesty, fiscal responsibility, open clear communication, but more importantly caring for and helping each other

 Honesty is better, believing in honesty I won't give the typical political fluffy answers or try trick people with dishonest statements.
  Open communication is better, phone, email, and social media are all ways that I will be available to listen to those I wish to represent and to openly communicate with.
  I believe that the government also needs to start being more responsible with our tax dollars. It's not there for politicians to spend at their whim. It's there to help our society flourish. It's there so we can help and care for each other; that’s what better looks like. Cutting funding to front line health, education, seniors and society's most vulnerable isn't helping, it's hurting. Cutting where it hurts the most isn’t better.
Different is what we need. Better is what I offer!  That's why I'm seeking the nomination for the Wildrose Party in Stony Plain riding.

Going to get ugly...

Everyone's heard that you shouldn't corner a wild animal and how dangerous it is to do so.  I'm thinking that might be the same for political parties as well. As I sit back and feel the winds of change blow through AB for the first time in 40+ years I can't help but think that things will get ugly next election.
 We had a taste of it last election with the PC's fearmongering tactics. As those winds of change blow in and the PCs feel their empire crashing down around them  I don't think it's a stretch to think we will see it again.  Like a cornered animal they are going to lash out in ugly ways. How many lies will we hear? How many slanderous comments will be thrown out?  How desperate will they get to hold on to the power and to stay on the gravy train they've created?
 Mark my words... It's going to get ugly.

Reflections

I would just like to take a moment to reflect on the past week in Alberta politics.  With the resignation of Alison Redford I think we seen a fundamental shift in Alberta politics. The PCAA, a party that's been in power for over 40 years has clearly lost its way. Infighting and the power struggle that it has caused is clearly shown that they are no longer putting the needs of Albertans first. We live in one of the greatest provinces in Canada, it's hard to believe that we should see the kind of government that we have right now. I can't help but think that we can do better than what were doing. It's time that we sit back as citizens and analyze what we as people of this great province want.
 Here we have a leader that steps down after scandal after scandal, broken promise after broken promise. Yet for someone who campaigned on transparency and accountability she claimed none for herself.  In her announcement she took none of the blame, claimed no responsibility, only pushed forward more false facts and deflect blame on others. She did do the right thing in resigning, with her at the helm the distraction that she caused with her poor choices was impairing the governing process.   Alison could have done better but she chose not to, she could have admitted fault but chose not to. She could have kept her election promises but chose not to. But to fair lets not put all the blame on her. The PC caucus is to blame too. Where were they when after the party campaigned on not incurring debt moved Alberta back into debt? Where were they when they campaigned on fiscal responsibility and living within our means and yet voted themselves a raise, wasted money on government jets and so on? Where were they when they claimed to standup for Albertans put then cut funding to education and PDD funding?  Dave Hancock, Doug Horner and all the other MLAs are guilty in this as well. Only after they realized that their jobs were at stake did some dare to speak for their constituents, a job they were hired for. They could have done better by speaking up for the people right from the start. 
 It's time for change, it's time for something different because what we have now isn't working, we can do better. 

Education debate

I'm republishing an email with permission from Dr.Tran-Davies ( an Albertan Doctor and concerned parent)  in regards to the purposed curriculum changes in Alberta Education and a petition she started to reinstated traditional and basic teaching and learning practices back into the math curriculum. You can sense her frustration in dealing with our current PC government. I too know this frustration when dealing with the cuts to PDD funding and Educational cuts that they did after the budget just after the election ( of which, said cuts were never campaigned on). I thought I would share her story with you.

"Dear fellow petitioners,

Before I forget again, my email address is mrgranthd@yahoo.ca in case you have further thoughts and suggestions. Please continue to CC a copy of your MLA letters to myself, as Mr. Manegre is tabulating the letters.
If I may put a few things into perspective:
1. I've been told that each signature on this petition likely represents 10-15 individuals who are in agreement with us but haven't yet signed. So 11,000 signatures may actually represent over 100,000 people. And because of your efforts, the signatures continue to mount to show Johnson exactly how we feel about the "new math" curriculum.
2. Each signature may represent 2-3 children in the system, and so potentially, we are the voice of nearly 2-300,000 children.
3. There are nearly 11,200 signatures today. Alison Redford was elected in Calgary-Elbow with 11,181 votes and Johnson in Athabasca/Redwater with 7377 votes.
This past week has been tense.
On Mon, Mar 10th, the Globe and Mail published my blog:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/alberta-education-reforms-ignore-kids-parents/article17390684/

And by Tuesday, Mar 11th, Johnson quickly jumped on the terms "partners in learning" and "self-directed learners", two descriptors I had used in my article, and called them "rubbish".

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2014/03/12/is-redford-government-backing-away-from-its-radical-curriculum-rewrite/

Of course those terms aren't "rubbish" at all, as they are in-line with the goals of discovery-based learning. But, as you can read in Staples' blog, it seems that with all the criticism of their redesign plans, the ministry may be back peddling a bit. You can compare Johnson's current comments to the ministry's previous statements of transforming the schools through the "Inspiring Education" vision. Even the fact sheets on the current Revised Math Program of studies state the following:
YESTERDAY's classroom - Teacher showing students how to solve questions and students copying steps from the board
TODAY's classroom - Students working together on genuine math tasks receiving guidance from the teacher WHEN NEEDED.
Also on Tues, Mar 11th, with the help of the passionate Wildrose Education advocate Bruce McAllister, we had a press conference with Dr. Troitsky (UofA mathematician), Jerry Manegre (retired school trustee), Jeanne Manegre (retired teacher), Dr. Marion Leithead (retired Education doctorate), Bill Leithead (retired engineer), Maurya Braun (environmental consultant), and Debra Hoover (parent representative) in attendance.
We then sat in on the Legislative Assembly's Question Period to "confront" Minister Johnson (from the balcony) with the request, through Bruce McAllister, to meet. Despite all of Johnson's grandiose talk about listening and being responsive, Johnson once again avoided committing to a personal meeting with myself and the team by stating that "WE have met three times". In fact our team has met with the ministry only twice, for less than an hour each, and neither time was Johnson present. It is, therefore, a clear misrepresentation of the situation, and as we realize now, the two times we had met with his staff (Greg Bass and Thomas Bradley) were mere public relation gestures, as Deputy Minister Greg Bass stated in his letter that they see no immediate need for change (despite the thousands of reports of harm to our children). Of course, Johnson got heckled in the House for uttering the blatant untruth.
On Mar 12th, Johnson felt the need to form solidarity with the teachers by sending out an important message to the association with the following statement:
"IN SPITE OF RECENT CRITICISM BY SOME, let me assure you that our Premier and government are incredibly proud of educators like you that have made our education system one of the best performing in the world. "
You know that from the very beginning we have not once criticized the teachers, only the curriculum.
Then on Thurs, Mar13th, Johnson emailed myself to tell me that he had "great concerns over your continued depiction of Alberta's Curriculum Redesign initiative....Let me be clear, Alberta is not moving to discovery-based learning." Instead, the redesign goal is for "Inquiry-based" learning, which he claims there is evidence for.
On Mar 14th, Staples quote Johnson saying he "doesn't know where that crap (regarding discovery learning model) came from."
The issue extends much deeper than just having our children memorize the times table, but he is not willing to sit down, to collaborate to find a solution. I just don't understand the reluctance to meet, to perhaps clear the air between the two sides. Though he states he is listening, I have little trust or faith in Johnson or the ministry right now. Johnson has yet to come forth as a leader.
We are truly feeling that we are exhausting many avenues, and a mass peaceful demonstration is becoming more of a reality. Let us tentatively aim for sometime during the week of Apr 14-17th. It is not something we take lightly because there is only one chance for us to get it right. One chance for us to show them that we stand united for our children's education.
Again, LIKE our Alberta Math Petition facebook page in case there are last minute developments or changes to our plans, since I can only email you once per week through change.org.
Thank you again for your tremendous help so far. I am grateful for your strength and passion in this matter.
Kindest regards,
Dr. Nhung Tran-Davies "  

While Canadians sleep or celebrate

 From coast to coast this morning, on the 23rd of February 2014 Canadians were either sleeping or celebrating or perhaps up for hours already. Our Olympic men's hockey team had just won the gold metal and the country was alive with excitement, the heroes of our national past time wowed the country again. But something a little sneaky, something clearly planned was unfolding at the national Liberal convention.  A controversial motion was being past while the country was sleeping, celebrating or busy with other things.
(see it here - http://t.co/bMfwKbDqaA)
  Social media has become one of the most important tools political parties can get their message out, it also can be their Achilles heal. So while the country was distracted, perhaps to avoid any social media backlash, the Liberals passed  a motion saying that if they gained power they would open the doors to allowing Doctors to kill their patients if that's what they so desired.  Yes "Killed".... I used this language on purpose, for that's what it is. The liberals call it dying with dignity but that's false, words and phrases have meanings and that is the incorrect use of this term.
 The argument people use is the fact that they want to die with dignity. Can you still not have dignity even if you have lost everything else including your health? This is not just an issue for those seeking assisted suicide but also an issue for the vulnerable of society.
 One example of this exploitation of the vulnerable is evident in the case of Robert and Tracy Latimer. Because she was severely handicapped he did not think her life should continue so he killed her.
However, because he made the case that it was an act of mercy, he was only found guilty of second degree murder (though it was clearly premeditated) and given only a two-year sentence (of which only one would be spent in prison).
Eventually his sentence was appealed and he received the minimum ten year sentence.
Because he was in minimum security he was able to complete apprenticeships in prison and still managed his farm. Apparently disabled people like Tracy are not protected by the law to the same extent as fully autonomous people because they do not demonstrate the same degree of autonomy as others. Understood this way, human dignity is not really for humans – it is dignity for autonomous agents.
If removing choice and control (autonomy) is tantamount to removing dignity, than dignity is subjective and easily lost. Infants, the disabled, seniors, and even people who are sleeping have lost control over themselves.
Another example is a prisoner of war in a concentration camp – what dignity would they have if they lost the ability to make choices in accordance with their aspirations?  If the court is going to be consistent, it would have to conclude that these people have also lost their dignity. Yet this is contrary to reality. We recognise prisoners of war with medals of bravery and hold them in high esteem for what they went through. Rather than hoping that their lives be extinguished to preserve them further suffering, we rejoice when they persevere against all odds. Likewise we treat our grandparents with even greater care when they lose some of the functioning that makes it more difficult to look after themselves. We also applaud the disabled for their determination. In all of these situations, it is apparent that dignity is not about making a choice to give up. Rather, it is about facing life with courage, gentleness, kindness, decency, hope, determination, and faith in spite of the circumstances of life. Legalising euthanasia and assisted suicide would further weaken the legal protection for Canada‘s most vulnerable people. The sad reality is that in countries where euthanasia is legalised, a large percentage of those who die never give their consent. Others decide for them that their life isn‘t worth living. For example, the 2009 statistics from the Netherlands that were just released show that 550 deaths happened without explicit request or consent. To add to that, the overall number of euthanasia deaths increased by an astounding 13% over 2008.
Why are these numbers skyrocketing? Who decides when someone no longer has the dignity to continue to live?  In an ageing welfare society where seniors and the disabled are increasingly seen as a burden on the state, it is hard to believe that the patient‘s dignity is what determines whether they live.  Using dignity talk to justify this shameful reality reveals that the concept itself is being exploited.
   Now if you say, well this is only for those terminal or in the evening of their life and suffering I have to point out and ask, how long will that last?  Lets look at Belgium they recently just legalised child Euthanasia. http://www.lifenews.com/2014/02/20/american-college-of-pediatricians-blasts-belgium-for-legalizing-child-euthanasia/
How long will it be if passed in Canada before this is legal here then too? How long till we start adding other criteria to the list of why we can euthanize someone? Are we ignoring history? The Nazis started their march to the final solution by starting down this same road. Now before people get all upset, no I'm not calling the Liberals Nazis,  I'm pointing out how wrong it is to go down this path, how easy it is to start taking those little baby steps in the wrong direction and the way it could go( and history does repeat its mistakes).
  It seems to be a constant battle against what appears to be always coming from the left side of the political spectrum, the thought that killing our preborn young, and now the sick and dying, our elderly, those having difficulties in this life is a solution to the problems we face. This isn't a solution and although they say its a hard decision I see it as an easy way out. Instead of thinking death is the solution the real focus should be on life, living it, protecting and caring for it even when that's hard.
 So what is the answer, what is it that that I believe the Liberals are ignoring or running from? The responsibility to truly care and take care of each other, rather then finding a quick easy solution.
Caring for one another should be the focus, investing in helping one another face the challenges of this life and not abandoning them or tossing them aside because they are a burden. We have been blessed in this modern world with the finest of medical technology, medications that can aid in pain control, and the Palliative care we have is top notch,  all we have to do is put in the effort to really and truly care for those in need.  Respect for life, treating it with the utmost value, helping those who are having a hard time face it with love compassion is the real solution to the problems so many face. So let us embrace a culture of LIFE!

Another year

As I approach the end of another year my mind goes through the events of said year. The good Lord has truly blessed me once again. My family and I enjoyed good health, we had a great summer vacationing, we had lots of work and other activities to keep us busy, of this I'm truly thankful. Yet my mind still drifts back to some of the events of this year that have me concerned. I worry about what kind of world, country, and province my kids will grow up in. I sit back while watching the political landscape and I truly worry that my kids will grow up in a different country that I did. I worry that they won't have the same freedoms that we have. I see the leaders of our province, country, and even the courts attack the fundamental freedoms, and attacking the processes of good governance  that this countries values and freedoms are based on all in the name of "progressivism", a term I have grown to hate. There is nothing progressive about taking away freedoms, there is nothing progressive about forcing one particular worldview on and entire society.
 Has honesty and integrity fully disappeared from our leaders? What ever happened to going into public service to serve? The way I see it the best way to serve your neighbours and community as a member of government is to be honest, respect peoples rights, fight for them! Unfortunately it seems like too many see it as an opportunity to push forward their own private agenda, they seem to see as it as an opportunity to line up at the perverbial trough. It also seems like those who are in government, including the judiciary, have forgotten what is right, it's like their moral compasses are broken and they can't even understand what fundamental rights and wrongs are anymore. This is why I worry about what kind of world my kids will grow up in. We have become a society based on the love of self, we have forgotten that responsiblity starts with ourselves but extends to helping others. I only hope that others will step up, others will speak up, others will stand up and speak the truth, show respect by doing what's right, by doing what's honourable by serving to make our communities better. I for one will and I hope that in the coming year we see a shift back to whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is admirable, for the sake of our children and the good of our society. 

Just a real bad idea

 With prostitution in the news again once again people are talking about whether or not it should be legalized.  Let me take a second to state my opinion on this..... NO!   No it should not be legalized. Hearing the common statement well it's not going away so why not make it safe for the women.  First off murder and theft aren't going away either should we legalize that?  And how are you going to make it safe?  Consider Holland, they legalized prostitution in an attempt to make it safe, yet now due to the demand,  women are commonly trafficked in to the country against their will to "work" in these brothels, only to be kicked to the streets when failing the mandatory disease check.  Forced to work illegally for their pimps to bring in more money for them, money the  girls will never see.  And now Holland is realizing that maybe their system of trying to control this has become a giant failure.  Sweden has the right idea, punish those demanding it,  not those forced into it and who are the real victims.  If you are one that thinks legalizing it's a good idea please spend some time reading these before you advocate for turning more innocent women into victims.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/opinion/kristof-the-face-of-modern-slavery.html?_r=4&src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB&

http://action.web.ca/home/catw/attach/handbook.pdf

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1836676,00.html

If you want I can find more or you could spend some time and realize just how bad of an idea legalizing it would be

Liberty lost?

I've been doing a lot of reading on the subject of liberty and freedom from some well known sources as the Magna Carta, USA constitution and bill of rights, the British North America Act, the 1960 Canadian bill of rights, and the Canadian Charter of Rights. These documents are the building blocks on which our societies were built and in my opinion the reason why they have thrived and been the leaders of the world.
 Why have I titled this post "Liberty lost?", well as I look around I see our societies in Britain, USA and Canada, and I see that more and more our societies continue to expect government to provide answers to all our problems, I see societies turn more and more control of  our everyday lives over to the ruling bodies, and I see societies ideologies that we must all be forced into agreeing with every aspect of life and not allowed to disagree or debate things without fear of ridicule or even worse prosecution.
  Governments are there to protect us not control us. Governments job is to ensure a level playing field for all, not to dictate how we are to do things. Our Governments job is to ensure that we have the freedom, liberty, and infrastructure to succeed and thrive as a society
  Then I have to ask have we lost liberty?  Have we forgotten what freedom means?  Have we forgotten that with freedom and liberty comes responsibility?  Or have we as a society become apathetic to taking and embracing said responsibilities?

How long is too long?

   Most have heard the saying  "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". There is a lot of  truth in that statement, and the idea behind it might just be the best reason the USA has term limits for its presidents, but here in Canada we don't have this for our Prime Ministers. Which leads me to the question, should we? How long is too long?
    I would like to state that although I understand the reasoning behind term limits I'm not sure I  think we need them here Canada. Within each party there is a process in the form of leadership reviews that meant to be a check in the system, a procedure to see if the parties have confidence in their leaders, whether or not this is what they are meant for or if they are effective in this regards is up for debate but they are there. I won't disagree that term limits for our leaders either Prime Ministers or the Premiers would be and effective way to curb the power corruption to a point. The truth is power can corrupt one very quickly and perhaps even with them in place it might not stop it from happening.
   So that brings me to my second question, perhaps the more important of the two, how long is too long?  This is another one that is tough yet surprisingly simple to answer.  Tough because everyone is different. Individuals can go an entire career in government and not have been there too long, and on the other hand some can be there a short time and have it be too long.  The question becomes simple, because with setting a queue, a point in which to spot and let us know they have been there too long it is surprisingly simple to tell when. We call our leaders, our MPs, Senators and MLAs public servants, their jobs are to serve their country or province and the people within them. So what is that benchmark, the queue or point that leads us to know when they have been there too long?  That's simple, it's when they forget that they serve the public, and when they start thinking that the public serves them.  When they sit back and think that they need to take the public by the hand and that they know what's best for them. When they start spending the tax money as if its their own private stash, when they forget that we as tax payers allow them to have these funds to distribute on programs and infrastructure that mutually benefits society. Too long is evident when they tax the people like they are entitled to that money and that it's theirs to blow at their whims.  The government is accountable to us, we are their bosses, the term Public Servants has meaning, has it been forgotten?
   I think history has shown that being in power too long can and will in a lot of cases make those public servants forget their roots, forget why and for whom they are there. We don't even have to look that far back in history here. The federal Liberal party under Chrétien and his successors fell into  the temptation of power and we saw scandal after scandal.  Here in Alberta even Ralph Klein in his latter years started to forget and threw money around like he condemned when he first took the reigns  of the party. More recently we heard the comments of MP Brent Rathgeber that " he barely recognizes his old party the CPC. Does sitting in public office for a lengthy time contribute to forgetting the roots, the base of the party?  Soon the CPC is having a membership meeting, will the base hold their leaders to account and bring them back down to ground and re-root them back in the grassroots values that the party is founded on?  Will this meeting be as effective as having a term limit by reminding the leadership and other party members why they are there?  Time will tell if the leadership has been there too long already and if they will listen to their base.  Lets be honest here as well, this is not a problem limited to one side of the political spectrum, both the right and the left are just as capable of falling prey to the lusts of power and entitlement, take a look at the recent Senate scandals.  Both Conservative and Liberal Senators have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar.  Lets also look closer to to home ( well my home ) lets look at Alberta. Over 40 years ago the PC party took power in Alberta. In the past year under the leadership of Alison Redford, an ex UN human rights lawyer (kind of a public servant) who became a MLA (public servant) and then a minister of the PC caucus (public servant with more responsibility)  and finally the leader of the party (public servant).  She has clearly shown a serious disconnect with the Joe and Jane Alberta. Her parties recent cuts in the budget focus on cutting Healthcare providers, education providers, Disability service providers, broad cuts to public, private, and separate school boards, broad cuts to post secondary education and the list goes on. But yet she funnels money and perks to special interest groups and continues to build bureaucracy by increasing the office staff and growing the back room government staff at a crazy rate. I have to ask, has she crossed that line?  Has she been there too long and forgotten why and for whom she's there?
  So lets ask the questions, should we have term limits on public servants?  If yes, who should they apply to?  Just our leaders like Prime Ministers and Premiers, or possibly to all MPs, Senators, and MLAs?  Please, post a comment I would love to hear others perspectives on this!

What's happened

I ask this question in regards to the latest happenings with St Albert MP Brent Rathgeber. What's happened to the CPC? What's happened to our PM Stephen Harper?  Brent tried to get a private members bill put through that would require those working at the CBC, a public company, payed for with tax dollars, to disclose how much it's publicly funded employees are making as which is done with other public jobs. It made sense to many people except those MPs that gutted the bill, those MPs  who have built relationships with the lobbyists in favour of keeping that info quiet.  Those MPs who campaigned on the CPC platform of  "honest responsible transparent government".
  What's happened to our PM who campaigned on a platform of public transparency, what's happened  to the PM who continually told Canadians that the Liberal party couldn't be trusted with government for the same things that they themselves are now guilty of?
What's happened to the Conservative Party?  Too often as of late we have seen a fundamental move away from it's conservative rooted base and its conservative rooted platform and continues to look more and more like the party lead by Jean Chrétien, or even worse.  At least Jean Chrétien produced balanced budgets, yes he too had his scandals but anyone watching lately can clearly see that Stephen Harper  is not guilt free in this area.
I think the CPC needs to sit down, wake up, and get its Conservative house in order and listen to Canadians who elected a CONSERVATIVE majority, not another Liberal party.

Are ALL Alberta kids a priority?

  Education is one of those things that is important to all Albertans. No matter who you are, it is one thing that every parent is concerned about. We are also extremely blessed that here in Alberta we have one of the best, world class education systems that anyone could dream of having. It's my opinion that one of the reasons that we have this world class system is the fact that we, in Alberta, enjoy a wide range of choices in what kind of education our kids can receive. We have Public schools, of which inside that system there are many choices in itself, with regular public school to the different faith based programs and speciality programs inside the public system. There is also a Catholic school system as well with its different programs that it offers as well. Home schooling is also an option that Alberta has for those who want to educate their kids themselves in the comfort of their homes, that also comes with a wide range of support for those home based programs. And yet another option out there in Alberta is the wide wide range of independent schools that can be found all over the province. It is this option of school that I would like to write about in this blog post.
Why do I want to write about this one option? Well it's because recently with all the talk in the province about budget short falls and where to cut funds the province has made it clear that the education of our kids is a priority for this government. The question is, if our kids are a priority, is cutting their funding for their education consistent with making them a priority? I would have to say no, it's not consistent with saying they are, but yet that is the case. Our government has made some cuts in the recent budget that targeted the independent school system only, in what I see as an unfair targeted cut. In order to address this we must first understand how the funding for these systems works, and let me say it can be quite complicated and there are many myths associated with the funding of independent schools.
  Let me start by saying that when it comes to educating our kids it is the parents’ fundamental right and duty to choose what kind of education and where their children receive that education. This is not something that is the responsibility of anyone other than the parent or guardian of the child. This is not just an opinion of a few but it is recognised as a fundamental Human Right.  Parents are the ones responsible for raising their offspring and educating them is one of the many responsibilities that come with that duty. So should a parent so choose that their choice for their child's education is in an independent school, that is their right to do so, as would be the case if they wanted to have them educated in either the Public or the Catholic systems.
The thing with making that choice is it also comes with an additional cost that is incurred by the parent for making that choice, seeing as these independent schools do not receive full funding for the kids those schools. And this is where we start with Myth #1. When people, hear that independent schools receive funding some tend to believe it’s full funding and people then question why independent schools receive full funding. Well....They don't. They currently receive 70% of the educational cost for those kids enrolled in them. They also until recently received a 70% grant called the plant operation and maintenance grant. They also do receive some smaller grants for various reasons and this is where I won't pretend to know what they are all for,  what I do know is that the bulk of the money received from the government is in the 70%, but the bulk of the funding for these schools is payed for by the users of them.
 Let me be clear about the 70%,  it isn't 70% of the total funding that public and Catholic schools receive. It's 70% of what the province considers the educational cost, this does not include capital costs, like I said the building is paid for by the users of these schools not the tax payers.  I would also like you to keep in mind that these tax paying Albertans are also paying for all the public and Catholic schools that are build as well through their taxes.  There is  also  the fact that the school boards of these schools quite often are all done with volunteer labour in which the board members put in huge amounts of time, for free, to help the administration of these schools.
  You might ask why do they receive funding at all? Myth #2... Aren't those people who send their kids to private or independent schools rich? Why can't they pay for it themselves? That's a simple answer, they like everyone else pay taxes and equally deserve that their children also receive an education of their choosing as per their fundamental human right as parents. I would venture to say that the vast majority of parents that send their kids to these schools aren't super rich but in most cases they are just your average Albertans that for whatever reason have chosen these schools for their kids. Now I will acknowledge that there are a few schools in Alberta that are "elite" schools, and that the parents are very rich, but they are the exception rather than the rule when it comes to independent schools, yet so many people seem to think that this is the case for most private or independent schools.
So even with just average Albertans, implementing the basic, fundamental human right to pick the place of education for their kids many still ask why the need for independent schools? Well that touches on Myth #3, that independent schools are only for religious people. Now although many of Alberta's independent schools are of a religious base of every diverse faith out there, not all are faith based. As diverse as the options out there are for the kind of schools there is, so are the reasons why parents choose why they want their kids to attend these schools. These choices for most parents who do, are usually private and they need not explain what reasons they have. Personally I have heard a wide range of reasons from wanting specific religious instruction, not agreeing with some specific instruction being taught in a particular school, location, and maybe also to move their child out of a situation of being bullied. They could also choose a school for students with learning challenges, or ones that offer alternative educational styles. Whatever the reason, they are the parent and they have the right to do what they feel is right for their kids. Being tax paying citizens as well they should also have availability to have their children's education funded as the others fine citizens of this great province do in the Catholic and public systems.
There is one more myth that I would like to touch on and that is the thought that defunding independent schools would save the public money. This is one myth that some politicians like to push in their attempts to limit a parents choice and the diversity that we as Canadians and Albertans hold as a fundamental value. They try to sell their idea by pushing the myth that it will save the public money but most experts will be quick to point out the truthful fact that defunding independent schools would in reality cost the province a fortune and I will explain why. Lets say that happened, by defunding or shutting down these schools all these students would be forced into the Catholic and Public systems in which these students would no longer just cost the province 70% of education cost and 0% of the capital cost but now would cost the tax payers of the province 100% of the educational cost PLUS 100% of the capital cost! New schools would have to be bought or built just to house the tens of thousands of students now filling these independent schools. Does that sound like saving the tax payers money? Right now the parents who send their kids to these schools are paying the bill for their school plus paying taxes which fund the public and catholic systems, so in reality they are paying twice for education.
That leads me back to the recent cuts by our government. As most people I've talked to in these schools have conveyed to me, in times of austerity all should have to carry the burden of cuts equally. The latest cuts that the Alberta government have put upon the independent schools was anywhere in between 8-10 %, a cut upon a system that already saves the tax payer money, a cut that doesn't share the burden because it does not hit the other school systems but only 

singles out independent schools. Recently I've talked to two different independent school principals one closer to city limits and one more rural. These two schools are facing huge budget shortfalls that the parents will have to make up or it will affect the programs the school runs. Please remember that these parents, who are already sacrificing their money to send these kids to these schools, and are already saving tax payers money by footing the capital costs for the schools are now being forced to dig deeper. Is this fair? Plus it raises the question, Is our current government serious about putting all the kids of this province as a priority? Does this current government really embrace the true meaning of embracing diversity? I think it does but with these cuts it's not showing it very well.

---

 

Dear Premier Redford

In response to MLA Kent Hehr writing a letter to Premier Redford in the Calgary Herald His letter here, I've written a retort letter myself

Dear Alison Redford

I write this letter to you as a fellow Albertan.  Although I thought we were on the same side I question that lately.  That being said I have great respect for the office and duties you have.  Times are tough right now and although not all of its your fault, some of it clearly is.

Take our financial woes.  We as Albertans have a revenue stream generating  around 40 billion dollars per year,  yet since you have stepped into office the spending has continually been increased on unnecessary  programs and frills.  Our Taxes are low because we have a great revenue stream with our resources  of which you in the last budget grossly overestimated at the behest of all opposition parties.  The Flat tax is something that Albertans support along with our low corporate taxes and no sales tax. Maybe we were wrong in continuing to lower resource revenue down from the 30% it was and maybe that could come up to equal the other provinces around us but at what cost? We could also tax everyone the heavier and the government could have all the money it needs to build and spend on anything we want , once again at what cost?

Admittedly,  Alberta is now in a bind. We could start taxing Albertans like we lived in B.C. and pull in another  11 billion dollars and by doing so move farther to the left and lose the Alberta advantage. Or what could be done is a good hard look at the books  and start cutting unused, unnecessary and elective programs. In conjunction with raising the resource revenue to stay in line with the other provinces while maintaining low and even tax rates we can hold the Alberta advantage to build schools, hospitals, pave roads and reduce hospital wait times ( although changing some administrative issues could clear some of that up as well)  and then we can also save some money for the future of our children without burdening them with debt.

During the election you ran "as not your father's PC party" separating yourself from the legacy that Ralph Klein left us. Although I realize that you are not Ralph, I hope that you could show Albertans that you respect the wonderful legacy that he left us by building this awesome province into the booming economic powerhouse it is and by doing so not disrespect the sacrifices that all went through in order to get here.

This, now is your opportunity to show real-life leadership and cut programs that aren't needed that we enjoyed in good times but can do without as the fiscal belt tightens. We as Albertans do not want more taxes and as one would cut in areas in their own homes when things get tight, so we also can do so provincially but it takes a leader to see and recognize that.  

Ms. Redford you once stated you were going to review all revenue streams to see if they were sustainable. Please do that, please listen to Albertans  who might have great ideas where to save money.  Please listen to opposition parties ideas even if they annoy you.  Alberta is not over due for a tax increase, we are overdue for responsible spending something that hasn't been done since the latter part of the Klein years. And if you chose to do whats right and cut unnecessary programs and people scream bloody murder , you can kindly remind them that somethings in life are privileges and not everything can be funded although we would love to if possible. 

I do know you have a difficult task ahead. That being said please do the right thing and do what is best for This wonderful province and maintain that Alberta advantage that we love!  Be a leader don't govern like Lougheed or Klein,  govern like Allison Redford and create your legacy by doing what the people of this province want and need.

Kindest regards

Russell Bosch

Russell Bosch is just a regular Albertan

Are you really the parent?

  There is a serious logical discrepancy inside of our health care and legal system. Recently one of my Twitter followers found this from an abortion clinic in Alberta. Regardless on how you feel about abortion if you are a parent this should concern you.

"Do I need parental consent?

No. Consent in Alberta is based on capacity, not age. If the physician and clinic staff feel you understand the procedure and its risks, you may sign your own consent form. We encourage young women to talk to a parent or guardian before having an abortion and most do. However, if you are reluctant to talk to your parents, there are sympathetic people you can speak to. Whether you plan to continue or terminate your pregnancy, see a doctor as soon as possible. Early medical attention will result in a better and safer outcome regardless of what you choose to do."

Here is the link to the site http://www.kensingtonclinic.com/faqs.php#parentalconsent
There is a really scary president set here as well "However, if you are reluctant to talk to your parents, there are sympathetic people you can speak to." So now these health care workers are taking it upon themselves the legal and moral responsibility of the parents?
Parents are legally responsible for their children to the age of 18, rightfully so. Our legal system doesn't recognize them as adults till 18 as well. It also puts restrictions on what they are allowed to consent to prior to being 18. Sexual consent of minors is not legally allowed till the age of 16, again rightfully so, yet there is no age restrictions for when a person can consent to get an abortion?  Think about this for a second, they can't consent to sex but can consent to killing their unborn child.   They can't consent to have someone father the child but can consent to have someone end the life of that child. Regardless if you are pro-life or pro-abortion, where is the logic in that.
Look at it this way as well. Those same kids can not go on a field trip at school without parental consent. They can not get a body piercing without parental consent. They can not get a tattoo. They can not vote. Why, because our society has deemed them not mature enough to make those decisions. Yet they can make life and death decisions? Once again where is the logic in that?
 Parents have the right as the responsible guardians of their children under their care to be the ones involved in this decision of those under their care. Abortions should not be performed on minors without parental knowledge or consent. And once again the government needs to sit back and realize that they are not the parent and that they are starting to cross the line in what regards their responsibilities are. Its time to back off and let us, the parents raise our kids not the state!

Lest we Forget or Have we forgotten?

Every November 11 we take time to remember the sacrifices of the brave men and women who gave their service and in too many tragic cases their lives to ensure that we back home have freedom. Around this time of year we wear poppies as a symbol of the the phrase "Lest we Forget" which leads me to the question,... Have we?   What is it that we are trying not to forget?  In my mind it is the fact that God  ( the same God that our Constitution recognizes to have Supremacy)  gave us freedoms in this life in accordance with the moral law he wrote into our consciences.  Yet when you watch the news and hear the special interest groups yelling,  they have clearly forgotten and so we have as well.  You may be asking really??  What proof do I have to make such a claim?  Well we don't have to look to far back in the past to see that we are repeating the same mistakes that have been made in the past because "We Forgot".  This past fall in the Canadian Parliament one man, Stephen Woodworth stood up and asked Canada to put together a committee to study whether one of its laws was fair. Sec 223.1 of the Canadian criminal code stated that there is one group of humans we excluded from protection under our law.  This is the same kind of laws that Nazi Germany use to start the progression to the Final Solution.  Now we wear a little red poppy, now we feel good because we say "Lest we Forget", but alas "We have Forgotten". Canadian Parliament voted down Mr Woodworth's motion.  It was a fair and logical question and he was right.  We should not in a free and democratic nation, one that claims to be champions of Human rights, one that claims to be tolerant and all inclusive have laws that deny any human their rights before the law rights endowed by our creator.  But its to easy to forget when you are blinded and more interested in your own selfish wants and desires,  and so "We Forget"  Those men that fought and died for us did not do so in order that we can ignore the principles that this country was founded on.  They did not die while fighting a dictator  in order that we could slowly start adopting the terrible and sick policies that he brought in and tried to force on Europe. "Lest we Forget" ???  Open our eyes people we have forgotten!!  Abortion is unfettered in Canada, more and more Socialist policies are being accepted and the government keeps trying to take away the freedom of the people.  Government time and time again keeps trying to take responsibility away from parents and try telling them what is best and how to raise their kids like we saw in Alberta last year with Bill 2 the education bill.  Thankfully it was thrown out but it isn't the only case.  In Ontario Educators have tried to call themselves "Co-Parents" saying its also their shared responsibility to raise the children. Examples can go on and on, so yes, I say " We have Forgotten".   When we throw out freedom and human rights for all humans so that we can have the "choice" to deny one their rights to kill them in order that we aren't inconvenience what does that say about our moral compass?   To me it says its broken.  And why, because "We have Forgotten"!  We as as a nation have not remembered those brave people sacrifices, they did something we have forgotten how to do.  We have forgotten what it means to be RESPONSIBLE.  Responsible to our family, friends, neighbors and fellow country men and women.  A common phrase I've heard a lot lately is " We have no right to tell another person how to live their life"  That is wrong, we do have a right and a responsibility to do that.  We do tell others that they can't take what isn't theirs to take, we tell people that they can not inflict harm on others, ( yet this is completely ignored during abortion )  and the list can go on.  Freedom comes at a price and that is being responsible and taking responsibility for our actions and when we ignore human rights and deny human beings those rights to skirt those responsibilities that we know that we have forgotten. We have forgotten that we do have a great country that affords us rights and protections and that we can not due to our own selfishness deny others those rights because its is not convenient for us.  We have forgotten that we must take responsibility for every thing we do in this life and that actions have consequences.  We have forgotten that taking responsibility does not mean demanding the government to do everything for us.  We have forgotten that we as a nation must also recognize that yes, God is supreme,  and it is not our will that should be done but His alone.  So next time you go and put on that little red poppy think deeply about what those people died for,  "Lest we Forget"

Be my voice

A friend of mine inspired me to write a poem and figured why not write one about about an issue that's very important to me right now, enjoy.....

Be my voice
I can not speak
Stand up for me
Your help I seek
I may be small
I need to grow
I just need time
for mom to show
That I've been here
now for a while
a few more months
you'll see my smile
unless I don't
make it till then
because their choice
I face my end
Don't want to die
I do want life
MY choice is not
The surgeons knife
Do not want me?
Then give me away
then I will live
and see the day
Though the law says
Thou shall not kill
I cry for help
I beg you still
Be my voice
I can not speak
Stand up for me
Your help I seek

Wake up!

   Let me just take a snip-it from the Canadian Centre for Bio-ethical Reforms statement of how they view the beginnings of human life that I believe "that it is self-evident that human beings, by virtue of their humanity, are objectively valuable; that value makes them equal in worth to one another." I also "acknowledge In human reproduction, a new, living human being comes into existence at fertilization (when a sperm fertilizes an egg)."  And yet there are many in this country that will not acknowledge this, although they know it to be true, all because they want to keep the abortion option open, but why?  Because of choice? Who's choice, certainly not the child's choice,  they take any hopes of that away when they cut it apart and tear it from the safety of its mothers womb. So they do it for their choice. No human has the right to purposefully take the life of an innocent child especially in the name of choice! Its time we have a law, its time we as a nation afford the most basic right we as people of this great nation enjoy and that is the right to life, to the children growing in the womb. Organizations like weneedalaw.ca are fighting for exactly that, a law to protect the preborn humans from the abortionists instruments of death.  But they have people standing in the way saying that they should have the choice. Ah but that leads to another question should they even have that option as a choice? I say NO! As should society. We as a civilized society already place limits on people. We make laws saying that we can not take what is not ours. We have laws that say how fast we can travel. We also have laws that say that we can not inflict harm on others or do anything that causes another's death. But yet over 100,000 times a year in Canada harm is being done to innocent children growing in what should be the safest place on the planet to start their journey in this life, their mothers womb. Are you asking if this really happens? We have no laws? Yes its true we have no laws protecting the preborn children who grow in their mothers wombs a place that was designed to do just that, grow the child till it is strong enough and big enough to be exposed to the harsh environment outside the womb. We have no laws here in Canada since 1988 when the Supreme Court struck down our abortion laws and no governing official lately has the moral fibre or strength of conviction to stand up to the selfish attitude of the populous and say that its not right! As a matter of fact there are enough of them that don't even want to talk about it!  Stephen Woodworth a MP from Ontario has purposed a motion to parliament to study if our current laws that are based on a 400 year old definition of when human life starts is up to the current data that we have with our modern medical knowledge.  And our PM and others in his government and the entire opposition party not only disagree with him they don't even want to debate it!  How sad is that, that we as a modern civilized country do not want to debate something!  Debate is what democracy is all about!  It is how this country was built and is paramount to keeping the truth in the forefront and oppression at bay!  And now our governing officials want to suppress the fundamental principle of democracy... debate!!! 

    It makes you wonder, why do they not want to talk about it?  My theory is that they deep down know that the truth is that it is self-evident that human beings, by virtue of their humanity, are objectively valuable; that value makes them equal in worth to one another. And in human reproduction, a new, living human being comes into existence at fertilization (when a sperm fertilizes an egg). And if it is true than they have sat by on the sidelines of one of the worst cases of human slaughter that our world has know. We as society have been duped by the self centred interests of our society and have, by dehumanizing the child growing within, bought a lie that is a clump of cells and not a human. Time to wake up Canada! If the mother is a human and the father is a human, what else can their offspring be?  And if it is self-evident that human beings, by virtue of their humanity, are objectively valuable; that value makes them equal in worth to one another than what are we doing allowing the slaughter of 100,000 innocent children when we won't even kill a serial murderer for his crimes?  Like I said wake up people!  Will you remain silent?