Democracy, but not for all

Published in the Toronto Star, February 28, 2016 Re: Let all MPs decide freely, Editorial Feb. 21 In demanding a free vote on the issue of assisted suicide, the Star editorializes that “If ever there was an issue that calls for MPs to examine their consciences and vote according to their personal values, this is it.” Curious, the Star did not extend such liberality to would-be candidates who had examined their consciences and would have voted according to their personal values with regard to abortion.  Indeed, the Star lauded Justin Trudeau when he barred such would-be Liberal candidates from seeking office. Democracy has many faces, some of them ugly.

Canada Post, censorship or not?

In March 2014, Canada Post issued a public apology. It had delivered to residents of Happy Valley-Goose Bay flyers critical of the homosexual lifestyle. In a published letter to the Toronto Star, I asked if the corporation had become a censorship agency responsible for the content of what it delivers.

This month, the issue flared up again. The flyer in question was pro-life (anti-abortion to others) but found offensive by some. The postal union got into the act by claiming some letter carriers were upset about the flyers and have balked at delivering them. The union "supports our members who feel they have a legitimate concern that a corporation like Canada Post should work to preserve family values."  So now it's the the union that wants into the censorship business.

Common sense at last. A Canada Post spokesperson stated that the corporation is not responsible for the content of mail and is legally obligated to deliver all such material.

Only the news the Toronto Star wants you to know

No one challenges the right of a publication to print what it wishes, that is to publish only what it wants its readers to know. It becomes offensive when the publication poses as being open to all reasonable viewpoints. Instances of selective reporting by the Toronto Star:

In 2006, a survey by the Toronto District School Board indicated that the bullying of gay students was not even on the radar of complaints. The Star did not mention it. 

* * *

The Star believes all races should be represented in public bodies in proportion to their numbers. The Star disagrees with Martin Luther King Jr whose dream it was that people would "not be judged by the colour of their skin but by their content of their character." The paper did not publish my letter advocating ability as the only necessary quality. 

* * *

The Star made no mention of the death of Heather Robinson. It was she who waged a successful legal campaign against certain media, including the Toronto Star, seeking compensation for artists whose work was used by the Star and others without permission or compensation. Nor did the Star report the results this multi-million dollar class-action lawsuit.

* * *

The issue is Liberal Party Justin Trudeau's banning of pro-life candidates. My plea for democracy:

Justine Trudeau disappoints (No choice but pro-choice, Trudeau tells candidates, May 8). Polls consistently show that most Canadians favour at least some control over access to abortion (Angus Read January 2010, Harris-Decima March 2010, Ipsos Reid, July 2012).  The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that with certain conditions an abortion law might be constitutional and not in violation of human rights legislation. Justice Bertha Wilson found the state has "a perfectly valid legislative objective" in seeking to protect the fetus. The fetus has a DNA distinct from that of the mother indicating a different life, to some a different person. There is no law dealing with attacks against womanhood by gender-selection abortions or the rights of still-born babies. The issue is hardly "settled" as Trudeau contends. All this deserves debate, especially in Parliament. It is undemocratic for the Liberal leader to snuff out debate of this important topic among would-be candidates.

On May 20, the Star ran an opinion piece which flies in the face of the truth. The writer, Ottawa professor Paul Saurette, denied, or was unaware of, the results of polls mentioned above. My May 21 letter to the Star:

Re Pro-choice advocates should welcome new abortion debate, May 20: The writers claim that "polls consistently" support abortion, but offer no proof. On the contrary, polls consistently show that a majority of Canadians favour at least some control over access to abortion. Here are three of them:  Angus Reid January 2012, Harris-Decima March 2010, Ipsos Reid July 2012. 

A 2012 Angus Reid poll found that 60 percent of Canadians (66 percent women to 54 percent men) believe a law should be enacted on sex-selection abortions. An Environics poll in 2011 found that 92% of Canadians thought sex selection abortions should be illegal in Canada. In an Ipsos Reid of June 12, 2014, 75 per cent disagreed with Trudeau's refusing admission into the Liberal Party of pro-life candidates. 

This too did not appear in the Toronto Star.

An e-mail to Professor Saurette remains unanswered.

Both Sides of the Argument

The British House of Lords is currently debating a law requiring school children, as young as five to receive "non-judgemental" information on abortion and homosexuality. Promoters of the law claim that children must receive "both sides of the argument."

One wonders why legislators do not require abortionists to provide "both sides of the argument" before doing their work. Why is it that only those who believe in preserving life must plead their case?

I would like to know why legislators do not require "both sides of the argument" when homosexuals are permitted to parade naked down our main street while simulating anal sex and masturbation.

The common media would have us believe that any expression of disagreement with such behaviour constitutes hatred and "homophobia." (That dreadful word now designates anyone who expresses any disagreement with the ever-expanding homosexual agenda.)

Politicians in the United Kingdom and some in Canada are caught in the threefold trap set by the media, well-funded homosexual activists, and the abortion lobby. None of this trio represents democratic opinion. Just one per cent of Canadian say they are homosexual.*  The vast majority find abortion morally wrong.**  As for media, the public consistently ranks its journalists near the bottom of any survey of esteem for the various professions.***

Two reasons for the common opinion about the media have just come to hand. The Globe and Mail did not report the poll on abortion mentioned above. While the March 13 Toronto Star buried "abortion" in a mountain of words, preferring to massage the story into one of "values" and left-leaning ideology. This constitutes yet another example of the media reporting only what they want the public to know.


* The Globe and Mail, June 16, 2004. The other "side of the argument" claims five to 10 per cent. Even that small number wields an unjustified influence in our courts, human rights commissions and legislatures.

** 75 per cent of Canadians deem abortion morally wrong, according to a February 2010 poll by Allan Gregg of Harris-Decima and Dr. Andre Turcotte of Carleton School of Journalism. Other polls that produced similar results: Angus Reid January 2010, Harris-Decima March 2010, Ipsos Reid July 2012, Ipsos Reid June 2014.

*** The Pew Research Center reported in September 2009 that 60 per cent of the U.S. public believe news coverage to be inaccurate and biased. That's up from 45 per cent in 1985.

Media Myths

The common media may get carried away by its own myths. This renders it unable to acknowledge the truths which give the lie to those myths. Here are two letters offering such truths, but which the Toronto Star refused to publish. The first destroys the Star's oft-expounded myth that the Catholic Church is contributing to the spread of AIDS in Africa. The second letter points out the pro-choice stand of the Star is actually pro-death.

Re Lewis sees tide turning in war on AIDS, Sept 30:

This report lists the "big players" in the war against aids but fails to mention the biggest players of all. Christian faith-based organizations provide more than half of AIDS health care worldwide. Specifically, one out of every four AIDS patients in the world is treated in a Roman Catholic centre.

The church has a network of 1,600 hospitals, 6,000 clinics, and 12,000 initiatives of a charitable and social nature, not only in Africa, but in Asia and elsewhere. Craig McClure, executive director of the International AIDS Society has acknowledged that these services do not receive the media attention, if not gratitude, they deserve.

Re Desperate mothers, Oct 3:

A healthy mother can and wants to give birth to a healthy baby girl. Because of a cultural preference for boys, her family forces her to have abortions on two occasions. Where are the pro-choice people defending a woman's right to choose life? Not at the Toronto Star.

Abortion versus School Attendance

According to a June 1, 2009 Canadian Press report, 146 schools in Ontario will close over the next two years. The reason is low enrolment. The impact on smaller communities could be devastating as young families will not move to towns with no schools. Local industry will suffer.

Since the 1997-1998 school year, there has been a 15 per cent decline in enrolment for Ontario elementary schools, and since 2002 average enrolment in secondary schools has dropped 14 per cent. Curious that no one sees the connection between school enrolment and live births.

There are 40,000 abortions in Ontario each year. That number of live births five years ago would fill many classrooms today.

In his History of Rome, Livy wrote, "Rome was not strong enough to challenge any of her neighbours, but great thought she was, her greatness seemed likely to last only for a generation. There were not enough women, and that --- added to the fact there was no intermarriage with neighbouring communities --- ruled out any hope of maintaining the level of population."