Skip to content

Letters: week of May 17

Liberal worldview on abortion wrong Sir: The letter from C. M. Law (April 26) regarding mourning for aborted children is something to think about.
Letters to the editor

Liberal worldview on abortion wrong

Sir:  The letter from C. M. Law (April 26) regarding mourning for aborted children is something to think about.

The writer states that the old days and the particular cruelties associated with forced pregnancy are gone.

Could it be that under this cloak of charity and compassion is barbarism and murder of the innocent who have no voice over their bodies?

Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms there is no ruling at which time an abortion cannot be performed, so that could be why we have the monster magnification of embryos on protestors posters.

Are these posters truth or fiction?  Possibly the educators of our school children who want to teach them proper terminology could show them what happens during abortion.

Some people view abortion as just removing a blob of tissue. Years ago we didn’t know exactly what the fetus was, but with advanced educational enlightenment and ultrasound we can see an image of the baby inside.

We know the heart starts beating at four to 10 weeks, and at 11 to 13 weeks arms, legs, fingers, toes, mouth, nose and ears appear.

According to former abortion provider, Dr. Kathi Aultman, the abortionist must count the body parts after each procedure. Scientific evidence indicates the fetus can kick and feel pain at 18 weeks. There is life inside the womb.

A woman has a choice to make, but if she has compassion and wisdom she can make it before new life begins.

I hope we can open our hearts and minds and consider these facts regarding these helpless lives and change our liberal worldview on abortion.

Life is special. Let us protect life and not destroy it.  Let us give thanks to God our Father who is the author and giver of life.

Ann Allen


Summer job attestation targets discrimination

Sir: Letter writer Keith Patrick (May 10) referred to my earlier letter by stating, ‘Connecting active obstruction to women’s rights is laughable.’

Most Canadians think women’s rights and human rights are no laughing matter. Not all that long ago in Canada hundreds of women died annually from illegal abortions.

The Liberal’s Summer Jobs criterion arose because some Canadian organizations discriminated by refusing to hire gay kids for summer jobs, while others were hired to actively harass women by actively waving bloody placards in their faces at abortion clinics.

The Liberals targeted these discriminatory activities, which extend far beyond mere ‘beliefs,’ with an Attestation asking people to respect Constitutional Charter Rights, which include gay, LGBTQ and women’s reproductive rights.

Mr. Patrick states the Liberal Attestation ‘insists you support abortion.’ This is false. The word ‘abortion’ is not mentioned. It asks to support the Constitutional right of women to make health decisions regarding their own bodies.

Is it only the abortion procedure Mr. Patrick and his ilk oppose? Or is it women’s autonomous rights as well? That is where the real ‘slippery slope’ Mr. Patrick alluded to is found.

Mr. Patrick equated women’s reproductive rights to smoking and drinking alcohol, because they are also ‘legal.’ It’s a hollow comparison.

People don’t line up outside convenience stores actively harassing and waving placards displaying bloodied, blackened lungs in the faces of those exercising their legal right to buy cigarettes.

But people have actively waved placards with bloodied illustrations while obstructing and screaming obscenities at women exercising their legal Constitutional rights at abortion clinics.

Mr. Patrick wrote, ‘Not everyone drinks or smokes; what if government made it conditional to receive state benefits by everyone having to sign a form saying they support those activities?’

The flaw in Mr. Patrick’s’ illogic is Canadians would sign forms supporting the right to partake in those activities whether they themselves partake or not.

The critical difference lies not with those who only oppose the abortion procedure itself, but with those who also oppose women’s Constitutional rights to decide that issue for themselves.

Stanton Earle


Loud and obnoxious drivers

Sir: Spring is here and summer on its way. I love this time of year.

But here we are, frustrated by the noise and the lack of respect from drivers on our streets.

We have to put up with the noise from loud and obnoxious vehicles and motorcycles speeding down Cathcart Boulevard.

These “road bullies” drive so fast and ride the bumpers of drivers who respect the speed limit, which can be very intimidating.

We also witness drag racing, side-by-side, from Christina to Colborne, right past a school zone.

A request to the city engineer to post speed limit signs probably won’t stop the problem, and city police claim they don’t have the manpower.

So we allow these “road bullies” to drive whatever speed they can get away with.

Any suggestions out there?

Terry Lindsay 


Extend new bike even further

Sir: Now that City Council has approved extending the bike lanes on Russell from Nelson to London Road, these lanes, for safety reasons, should now be continued to Maria.

The seven car parking spots on the west side of this section of Russell should be eliminated and replaced by a bike lane.  The east side should have a bike lane for part of it and “sharrows” alongside the existing parking spots.

This action will not only make cycling safer but will also reduce a significant safety problem. Cars parked on the west side of Russell, opposite the hospital, make it unduly hazardous for staff crossing over Russell from their parking lot to the hospital.

The parked cars impede the view that drivers have of pedestrians crossing and vice versa. This situation will be compounded by the increasing presence of cyclists.

Add to this the steady stream of traffic exiting the hospital at this same crossing and you have an unacceptable traffic safety problem that should not have been ignored for as long as it has.

Saorgus Mc Ginley


Summer job policy hypocritical

Sir: I have been watching the summer job funding controversy unfold for the last few months. All that really seems to be happening from this policy decision by the Justin Trudeau Liberals is hypocrisy.

Trudeau is saying that if groups want government funding for summer jobs they must not have explicit pro-life views. Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter gives Canadians the right to expression, which includes the right to express disagreement with the government.

Trudeau is using funding to create summer anti-Kinder Morgan pipeline jobs under the guise of "free speech." Free speech is apparently great as long as it's speech that aligns with the Liberal worldview.

Also, in 2017 Liberal MP Iqra Khalid granted $56,000 to a staunch pro-life group, Bio-Ethical Reform. This was not a legacy grant. Apparently it's a coin toss as to what actions the Liberals will take on their own policies.

It’s said the summer jobs funding policy is based on protecting human rights. However, Trudeau gave funding to the Canadian Arab Federation. The CAF had lost federal funding in 2009 for its anti-Semitic and pro-Hamas views. A federal judge upheld that cutting federal funding was reasonable.

Trudeau also gave funding to the Anatolia Islamic Center. In 2013, the Imam at the center was videotaped saying the LGBT community was like cancer or AIDS and needed "special treatment."

Liberal MP Kent Hehr called for the Center to lose funding. The Imam responsible is still employed there.

Are abortion rights more important to the Trudeau Liberals then our Jewish and LGBT communities?

Canadian free speech is great if it agrees with Trudeau, but contrary opinions must remain silent?

Liberal changes to the summer jobs program have caused denials to skyrocket from 126 in 2017 to over 1,560 this year. When you have to deny 1,400 groups your views probably aren't as accepted as you'd like to believe. Trudeau has shown nothing with this policy other then hypocrisy and a double standard.

R. D. McLaughlin


Reproductive rights of women aren’t a Constitutional right

Sir: In his May 3 letter, Stanton Earle accuses Marilyn Gladu of tap dancing around the truth. He then does a little tap dancing himself by claiming the Charter and Constitution of Canada uphold the reproductive rights of women.

This is a myth regularly repeated by Liberals. It is based on the misinterpretation of the 1982 Supreme Court decision in the case of the Crown versus the abortionist Henry Morgentaler.

In its ruling, the court said the restrictions to access contained in the law at that time were unfair and so the law was struck down.

The court did not declare abortion to be a Constitutional Right. In fact, the court recommended the law be rewritten. The government of the day, led by Pierre Elliot Trudeau, like every subsequent government, lacked the political courage to touch this subject.

By default, the Liberals regularly and loudly claim a Constitutional Right that does not exist.

Charles Oxley


Join the Community: Receive Our Daily News Email for Free