Sunday, December 28, 2014

Canadian Women Near Total Enslavement (Servitude, Subjugation). Health Canada decision on abortion pill set for mid-January


  5066
Globe and Mail - December 23, 2014
 
Health Canada decision on abortion pill set for mid-January
 
Health Canada received the application in October, 2012 for approval of mifepristone, already available in 60 countries
 
KELLY GRANT
 
Health Canada has set an internal deadline of mid-January to finally make a decision on the abortion pill, a drug that is already available in 60 countries but has been stuck in Canada’s drug-approval pipeline for more than three years.
 
The pro-choice advocates and researchers who have been helping a small European drug company with its Canadian application say they have encountered an unusual amount of antipathy from the regulators who will decide if Canadian women get access mifepristone, a pill that can end an early pregnancy when combined with a drug that is already sold in this country.
 
More than 700 days have passed since the company resubmitted its application at the request of Health Canada in October, 2012 – that is more than twice as long as the regulator’s 300-day standard for a first decision on a new drug.
 
The lag occurred even though the department’s deputy minister told a House of Commons committee in November of last year that mifepristone “would go faster than normal applications,” because of its widespread use.
 
Despite the delay, the leader of the organization that represents abortion providers in the United States and Canada believes Health Canada is poised to approve the drug. The decision could significantly expand access for women who live far from the urban centres that have most of Canada’s abortion facilities.
 
“Canada is the only developed country in the world without the gold standard for medical abortion care. It makes no sense,” said Vicki Saporta, the Washington-based president of the National Abortion Federation (NAF.) “We have responded and the manufacturer has responded to every concern [the regulators] have raised ... we do expect that they will approve it in January.”
 
Health Canada would say virtually nothing about the mifepristone application, citing confidentiality policies. It refused to divulge internal deadlines, the date the application was filed or the name of the drug company.
 
But The Globe and Mail has learned the applicant is Linepharma International, a small manufacturer based in France and the United Kingdom that makes only two drugs: mifespristone and misoprostol, the second drug required for a medical abortion.
 
One of Linepharma’s advisers and board members is AndrĂ© Ulmann, a French doctor and one of the fathers of medical abortion. He was the international project leader for the development of RU-486 – as mifepristone was originally known – at the French pharmaceutical giant Roussel-Uclaf in the 1980s.
 
The company donated the U.S. rights to mifepristone to a U.S. non-profit organization called the Population Council, which got the drug approved there in 2000.
 
At the time, the director of the organization’s reproductive health program was Beverly Winikoff. She is now the president of Gynuity Health Projects, a U.S. not-for-profit research group that has been providing pro bono support to Linepharma for its Canadian application.
 
“There seemed to be a lot of negativity toward this drug in some of the meetings I attended,” Dr. Winikoff said. “I’ve been in a lot of regulatory meetings and the Canadian one was unusual in that people were attacking in a way I wouldn’t have expected in a regulatory meeting.”
 
A spokesman for Health Canada declined to address that characterization directly, but said in a statement that, “Health Canada undertakes a rigorous review of every drug submission, holding companies accountable for providing detailed and scientifically defensible information.”
 
In October, 2011, Linepharma International filed a new-drug submission for its Mifepristone Linepharma 200 milligram tablet, which it aims to sell in combination with misoprostol, according to Marion Ulmann, the company’s chief operating officer.
 
After Health Canada requested more “quality documentation,” Linepharma resubmitted its application in October, 2012, Ms. Ulmann said by e-mail.
 
In an earlier interview, she called the Health Canada process “very smooth,” and said she had no complaints.
 
Ms. Saporta, on the other hand, echoed Dr. Winikoff’s concerns.
 
Asked about complaints that the review has been slow and difficult, Health Minister Rona Ambrose said: “I think if you talk to any drug company on the drug approval process, they might say the same thing. I’m not involved in any drug approvals. What I hear from drug companies is the process is very rigorous. But I think it needs to be. Drug safety is very important.”
 
Safety concerns have been raised about mifepristone. A 27-year-old Quebec woman died during a Canadian clinical trial of it in 2001, which anti-abortion activists have raised in their campaign against the pill.
 
“It’s anything but perfectly safe ... it’s a deadly cocktail for the baby certainly, but also for the mother,” said Mary Ellen Douglas, a national organizer for the Campaign Life Coalition, which puts on the massive National March for Life at Parliament Hill every year. Last year’s theme was keeping RU-486 out of Canada.
 
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified at least 14 deaths after medical abortions in the United States.
 
In six of the most concerning cases, the women died of septic shock after they were infected with an unexpectedly lethal strain of a bacteria called Clostridium sordelli. But the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that strain also killed women during other reproductive events, including surgical abortions, spontaneous miscarriages and births.
 
Clostridium sordelli was responsible for the Quebec woman’s death, and brought an end to the Canadian trials of mifepristone.
 
“A lot of smart people worked so hard trying to figure this one out and decided that there had been a mutation in the bacteria,” said Ellen Wiebe, the Vancouver doctor who led the Canadian trials. “It was one in a million, but still, there’s a lot more than a million people around, and so we had those deaths. There haven’t been any recent ones.”
 
On the whole, mifepristone is considered extremely safe. A review of 45,000 medical abortions published last year in the journal Contraception found serious complications in just 0.4 per cent of cases.
 
“Every other developed country in the world has this drug,” Dr. Winikoff said. “Why not Canada?”
 
2014 All material Copyright (c) Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. and its licensors.

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

Near Final Enslavemet For Women : Are You for Hate and Sick R U-486

Bloggers note: Dead Conscience. Dead Baby. Dead women                  4924 5065

R U 4 hate and sick...86 the capital enslavement of women is near complete RU-486 would guarantee their absolute subservience to MAN ..and there maybe NO going Back ....Time is now NOW, to reject this bodily poison, this subservience to the Anti women rhetoric this end in all for women freedom .... RU 486 = Women will forever regret , 4ever be the soul object of their sure demise, 4ever self destruct there reproductive abilities. 4ever hate them selves, 4ever be sick..= 4 8 6...For hate and be forever sick ....nothing but a massive wholehearted rejection of this drug will suffice......this will become an election issue want it or not ...i see and NDP-LIBERAL coalition on the approved side and I am waiting to see what Rona Ambrose will do. GodSpeed!

see report 2 after this article

 

Health Canada decision on abortion pill set for mid-January

KELLY GRANT - HEALTH REPORTER
The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Dec. 23 2014, 6:00 AM EST Last updated Tuesday, Dec. 23 2014, 11:56 AM EST

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/health-canada-decision-on-abortion-pill-set-for-mid-january/article22183863/

Health Canada has set an internal deadline of mid-January to finally make a decision on the abortion pill, a drug that is already available in 60 countries but has been stuck in Canada’s drug-approval pipeline for more than three years.

The pro-choice advocates and researchers who have been helping a small European drug company with its Canadian application say they have encountered an unusual amount of antipathy from the regulators who will decide if Canadian women get access to mifepristone, a pill that can end an early pregnancy when combined with a drug that is already sold in this country.

More than 700 days have passed since the company resubmitted its application at the request of Health Canada in October, 2012 – that is more than twice as long as the regulator’s 300-day standard for a first decision on a new drug.

The lag occurred even though the department’s deputy minister told a House of Commons committee in November of last year that mifepristone “would go faster than normal applications,” because of its widespread use.

Despite the delay, the leader of the organization that represents abortion providers in the United States and Canada believes Health Canada is poised to approve the drug. The decision could significantly expand access for women who live far from the urban centres that have most of Canada’s abortion facilities.

“Canada is the only developed country in the world without the gold standard for medical abortion care. It makes no sense,” said Vicki Saporta, the Washington-based president of the National Abortion Federation (NAF.) 

“We have responded and the manufacturer has responded to every concern [the regulators] have raised ... we do expect that they will approve it in January.”

Health Canada would say virtually nothing about the mifepristone application, citing confidentiality policies. It refused to divulge internal deadlines, the date the application was filed or the name of the drug company.

But The Globe and Mail has learned the applicant is Linepharma International, a small manufacturer based in France and the United Kingdom that makes only two drugs: mifespristone and misoprostol, the second drug required for a medical abortion.

One of Linepharma’s advisers and board members is AndrĂ© Ulmann, a French doctor and one of the fathers of medical abortion.

 He was the international project leader for the development of RU-486 – as mifepristone was originally known – at the French pharmaceutical giant Roussel-Uclaf in the 1980s.

The company donated the U.S. rights to mifepristone to a U.S. non-profit organization called the Population Council, which got the drug approved there in 2000.

At the time, the director of the organization’s reproductive health program was Beverly Winikoff. She is now the president of Gynuity Health Projects, a U.S. not-for-profit research group that has been providing pro bono support to Linepharma for its Canadian application.

“There seemed to be a lot of negativity toward this drug in some of the meetings I attended,” Dr. Winikoff said. “I’ve been in a lot of regulatory meetings and the Canadian one was unusual in that people were attacking in a way I wouldn’t have expected in a regulatory meeting.”

A spokesman for Health Canada declined to address that characterization directly, but said in a statement that, “Health Canada undertakes a rigorous review of every drug submission, holding companies accountable for providing detailed and scientifically defensible information.”

In October, 2011, Linepharma International filed a new-drug submission for its Mifepristone Linepharma 200 milligram tablet, which it aims to sell in combination with misoprostol, according to Marion Ulmann, the company’s chief operating officer.

After Health Canada requested more “quality documentation,” Linepharma resubmitted its application in October, 2012, Ms. Ulmann said by e-mail.

In an earlier interview, she called the Health Canada process “very smooth,” and said she had no complaints.
Ms. Saporta, on the other hand, echoed Dr. Winikoff’s concerns.

Asked about complaints that the review has been slow and difficult, Health Minister Rona Ambrose said: “I think if you talk to any drug company on the drug approval process, they might say the same thing. I’m not involved in any drug approvals. 

What I hear from drug companies is the process is very rigorous. But I think it needs to be. Drug safety is very important.”

Safety concerns have been raised about mifepristone. A 27-year-old Quebec woman died during a Canadian clinical trial of it in 2001, which anti-abortion activists have raised in their campaign against the pill.

“It’s anything but perfectly safe ... it’s a deadly cocktail for the baby certainly, but also for the mother,” said Mary Ellen Douglas, a national organizer for the Campaign Life Coalition, which puts on the massive National March for Life at Parliament Hill every year. Last year’s theme was keeping RU-486 out of Canada.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified at least 14 deaths after medical abortions in the United States.
In six of the most concerning cases, the women died of septic shock after they were infected with an unexpectedly lethal strain of a bacteria called Clostridium sordelli

But the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that strain also killed women during other reproductive events, including surgical abortions, spontaneous miscarriages and births.

Clostridium sordelli was responsible for the Quebec woman’s death, and brought an end to the Canadian trials of mifepristone.

“A lot of smart people worked so hard trying to figure this one out and decided that there had been a mutation in the bacteria,” said Ellen Wiebe, the Vancouver doctor who led the Canadian trials.

 “It was one in a million, but still, there’s a lot more than a million people around, and so we had those deaths. There haven’t been any recent ones.”

On the whole, mifepristone is considered extremely safe. A review of 45,000 medical abortions published last year in the journal Contraception found serious complications in just 0.4 per cent of cases.

“Every other developed country in the world has this drug,” Dr. Winikoff said. “Why not Canada?”

END 
________________________________
report 2 



READ OTHER REPORT:

http://impeachmatthewhill.blogspot.ca/2005/12/morning-after-pill-gregory-hill.html

Monday, December 22, 2014

Hey Toronto Councillors – Please Stand Up for Marginalized Women

Headshot 4870

Joy Smith   MP, Kildonan – St. Paul

It’s appalling that 25 Toronto Councillors have jointly sent a letter to Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, asking her to refer Bill C-36 to the Ontario Court of Appeal. Even more shocking, these Councillors are requesting that the Premier actually direct police officers to not uphold the law that was just passed by the federal government.
The letter from the Councillors cites the concern that Bill C-36 will be ‘dangerous for sex workers’ and ‘will recreate harms that previously existed under the old laws.’
 
Their evidence of this – well they talk about experts, but provide no actual documentation. Rather, the Councillors have bought into the fear mongering by pro-legalization lobbyists – the same ones that stand to make significant financial gains off vulnerable and exploited women if prostitution is legalized. Sadly it appears the Premier has taken the bait as she mulls over her options.
 
The media has also jumped on the bandwagon over the weekend with multiple outlets covering the coming into force of Bill C-36 and the impending doom it will have.
 
Many articles highlighted the ‘over 60 organizations’ calling for the repeal – but only ever named three organizations. The articles reiterated the call for repeal or non-enforcement without actually providing any consideration to the impact of legalized prostitution.
 
As countries like Germany and the Netherlands have discovered, legalizing prostitution leads to increased violence against women, increased child prostitution, and increased human trafficking. This is not the future we want to create for our youth.
At least one media organization is more forthright about their motivations. For NOW Magazine, it’s all about the profits. In a statement posted on December 7, 2014, NOW Magazine Editor Alice Klein defends their position of continuing to run advertising for sexual services in the name of ‘feisty journalism.’ Klein admits that NOW Magazine benefits from this type of advertising and “has made a principled choice to stand against discrimination and further marginalization of sex workers.”
 
 But nothing about their decision is principled. NOW Magazine enjoys the financial gain it receives from advertising marginalized and vulnerable women and there is term for that – it’s called exploitation. Alas, could we expect anything different from a paper that defends men who buy women as an ‘oppressed sexual minority.’
 
The editor of Feminist Current, Meghan Murphy, is absolutely correct when she points out the hypocrisy of NOW Magazine’s self-defense of standing up for rights, writing “Profiting from ads that objectify and sell women has nothing to do with human rights.” Anyone who has opened up a NOW Magazine, cannot miss the pages of advertising, most of which is for sexual services through body rub parlours or ‘independent sex workers.’
 
 Except when you speak to survivors and law enforcement, you will quickly discover that many massage parlours – licensed and unlicensed – are fronts for sex trafficking operations and organized crime.
The most glaring absence from both the Councillors’ letter to the Premier and media reports – the voices of survivors of prostitution. During the review of Bill C-36 this past summer by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, many survivors testified about the violence inherent in prostitution.
 
Some entered by choice, some were coerced, but all were unanimous in their call for the government to target the demand for sexual services and pimps. I would encourage the Premier and all Councillors to meet with survivors of prostitution and hear their concerns.
 
Law enforcement agencies, communities, and women's groups have welcomed our approach in Bill C-36 because they know first-hand that activities around prostitution are harmful to women and for society. They are not harmful because they are illegal; they are illegal because they are harmful.
 
We must continue to criminalize the activities of pimps and johns. The legalization of their activities is unacceptable to Canadians as are elected officials who call for police to be ordered to ignore laws. It’s time for Toronto Councillors to stand up for the marginalized and vulnerable.


Wednesday, December 3, 2014

The Motherload

The Motherload

Thursday, December 4, 2014 at 9 PM on CBC-TV

Clik on the link for the video:
http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episodes/motherload?cid=Dec+3+2014
 
Video placeholder
 
 
 
4767
Episode available within Canada only. Video help?

 
Why would a recent article in The Atlantic called Why Women Still Can’t Have It All” create such an international sensation? Why does the announcement of a new CEO of a Fortune 500 company make headlines because she is also pregnant? Why does a billionaire Facebook boss feel compelled to break her silence and speak out about the lack of women at the top? Why all the fuss?
"I made this documentary, in part, because it was only when I had a child 5 years ago did I realize that things were not the same for men and women. And it was – strangely - shocking to me." – Cornelia Principe, Director/Producer
Watch an
interview on Katie Chats.
Perhaps it’s because it was all supposed to have changed by now. Dads were supposed to carry more of the load. Motherhood was not supposed to become so idealized. Employers were supposed to be more flexible. Women were supposed to climb higher up the ladder, but feel less guilty. Society was supposed to live up to the promises our mothers made. From single moms to CEOs – a generation of burnt-out, disillusioned moms are waking up and smelling the coffee. Forget having it all – today’s working moms are doing it all. Call it “The Motherload”.

“If you ratchet up the standards at work, and you ratchet up the standards of motherhood, you're gonna get to be overwhelmed,” notes Joan C. Williams, Law Professor and advocate for better workplace practices for both women and men.

Washington Post reporter Brigid Schulte
THE MOTHERLOAD takes an in-depth and new look at the subject of working mothers - the current issues, challenges and triumphs that come from trying or having to do it all. And compares Canadian women’s lives to their even more troubled American counterparts – where women are struggling with work-life balance and paying a heavy price with their health.

And it doesn’t stop with women, as now men are starting to feel the weight of “The Motherload”. As writer and Washington Post reporter, Brigid Schulte says “this is not just a mommy issue. This is a human rights issue.” When we meet Brigid, she is working on a book called “Overwhelmed” about her struggles to maintain a demanding career and be an attentive mother of two.

As a key foreign policy advisor to the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Anne-Marie Slaughter appears to have it all. Some would say a dream job, a real position of power. But when time comes to sign up for another two years, Anne-Marie, a mother of two, surprises her boss and herself- she quits. “You cannot tell Egypt to hold the revolution because your policy planner has to go home for the weekend”. She returns home to her family and her job as a University Professor and writes “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All” for The Atlantic Magazine. The article becomes an international sensation, sparking debate, discussion and a whole lot of controversy.

Facebook COO Sherly Sandberg
Sheryl Sandberg is the billionaire COO of Facebook, but she is also a mom – one who was afraid to admit that when she leaves work at 5:30 pm, it’s to have dinner with her kids. Her best-selling book “Lean In” is, she hopes, a call to arms for women to not give up on their ambition. ”The revolution has stalled” states Sandberg and that “It’s important we acknowledge this stagnation for women.”

In the documentary THE MOTHERLOAD, we profile several working mothers struggling to just keep working – much less advance in their careers. Emilie, a prosecutor for the federal government and mother of three, who has just returned to work after her third and final maternity leave (Emilie also happens to be the daughter of former Canadian Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour), Kimeiko, also a mother of three, on a year leave from her job as a college professor, and Helen, a divorced mother of two, who chose to be let go of her position as a plant manager instead of continue to strain under the high expectations at work while trying to care for her kids. We also meet the ultimate in doing it all mothers -- divorced, single mom Cathy is on her own – she works two jobs when we first meet her while also caring for her two young sons.

THE MOTHERLOAD is produced and directed by Cornelia Principe for Border City Pictures. Executive producer is Bob Culbert.

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Medical abortion in Canada: behind the times see Bloggers Note:

                              http://www.cmaj.ca/site/earlyreleases/20nov14_abortion-access-grim-in-English-Canada.xhtml      4600
Abortion access grim in English Canada
Outside Quebec, it can be a long road from confirming an unwanted pregnancy to accessing the means to end it.
Bloggers note: The only Grim thing here is 100,000 plus abortions and suffering Mom s with dead babies Canadian Medical Association Journal SHAME on our doctors... CMA members come to grips of yourselves and offer real choices, Women are owed More than abortion.
                             
November 20, 2014
Lauren Vogel, cmaj

Canadian women seeking to end unwanted pregnancies face wide gaps in access to abortion and have little choice in the technique used, a landmark study reveals.

Access to abortion depends largely on where you live, with wide disparities among provinces and between rural and urban locations, according to a new survey of abortion services in Canada. And with few options for drug-induced abortion — the preferred method for ending a pregnancy during the first trimester in the United States and many European peer nations — 96% of abortions in Canada are done surgically.

Researchers presented initial results of the 2012 survey, which was funded by the Society of Family Planning, at the Family Medicine Forum in Quebec City on Nov. 12. The venue was germane; the study shows that 46 of Canada's 94 abortion facilities are located in Quebec. The province is also a leader in equitable access; half of its abortion facilities are in rural areas and there's at least one facility in every health region.

No other province comes close to providing the same level of access. British Columbia has 16 facilities located in hospitals, community health centers and doctor's offices; half of these are in rural areas. There are 16 facilities in Ontario, eight among Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, four in Atlantic Canada and four in the territories. Of these facilities, only those in the territories and one in Atlantic Canada are located in rural areas. There is no facility in Prince Edward Island.

The results paint a starker picture than researchers expected, says co-investigator Dr. Edith Guilbert, a senior medical advisor at the National Institute of Public Health of Quebec. "We knew about PEI and we knew that access was difficult in New Brunswick, but now we have real data showing that it's not just an Atlantic matter — the number of providers in the other English-speaking provinces is quite low."

It's also the first clear evidence that a laissez-faire approach to abortion provision doesn't ensure equitable access. Since the 1970s, Quebec has dedicated funds to establish abortion clinics in underserved areas. And in the 1990s, BC legislated which hospitals must offer abortion services to ensure rural and remote access. Both provinces support provider networks, and in BC there's a hotline women can call to connect with the nearest facility in the network.

"These are the only jurisdictions where the proportion of rural facilities is equal to or greater than the proportion of women living in these areas," says co-investigator Dr. Wendy Norman, who holds the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Public Health Agency of Canada chair in applied public health research. "There are no other provincial or territorial policies supporting this kind of access to abortion in other regions of Canada."

For women, this means waiting longer and travelling farther for basic reproductive care, which in turn puts them at higher risk of having a second trimester abortion and its associated complications. And for those without the resources or time to navigate the system, it may mean carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.

"Canada has never counted the costs being incurred … when abortion services aren't accessible," says Norman. "You're looking at things like the productivity of the mother in society, and the ability of the mother to launch the children she may already have."

Guilbert says that increasing access to medical abortion — that is, abortion induced by oral medication — could close some of the gaps in rural access because a local family doctor could administer the drug. "It saves women having to travel. It saves them having to undergo a surgical procedure."

Yet barely 4% of abortions in Canada are done this way, compared to more than half in some peer nations, such as France. This is largely because the best abortion drugs are not available in Canada — "we are relying on medications that are not optimal," says Guilbert.

Health Canada has been considering whether to approve mifepristone (known as RU-486) since December 2012. According to a recent CMAJ commentary   (( article below)) (2013;186:13-14), the drug is considered the gold standard for inducing safe and early non-surgical abortion. Instead, Canadian physicians rely on less effective medicines ordinarily used to treat ectopic pregnancy, or in some cases, cancer.

"These are slow to act, and when you explain to women it's going to take two or three weeks or more before the abortion is complete, they very quickly opt for a surgical abortion," says Guilbert.

Norman argues that's far from a choice. "We have some excellent policy and service delivery models, but currently we're not providing top-notch access for women to the full range of reproductive services across Canada."

extract-image

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Dramatic Campaign Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder

5528  Dramatic New Nunavut FASD Campaign Targets Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder
Posted: Updated:
NUNAVUT FASD ADS 4360
 
New dramatic posters by the Government of Nunavut target alcohol and pregnancy | GovernmentofNunavut/Twitter
 


A new series of posters launched by the Government of Nunavut is tackling the topic of drinking alcohol during pregnancy, and in particular, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD).

The pair of posters (one in English and one in Inuktitut), are part of a campaign released on Friday advising women not to drink any type of alcohol during pregnancy.

 The poster, which depicts a vivid image of a woman drinking out of a bottle directly linking to her unborn baby, also reads, "Baby or the bottle? Pregnant women should never drink alcohol."

nunavut fasd ads
On Twitter, some users found the poster offensive, while others were quick to point out how effective and powerful they found the imagery. According to the CBC, some said they were supportive because it put children first.
The campaign was originally designed by Iqaluit-based graphic design company Atiigo Media Inc., who said on Facebook they were inspired by a similar Russian campaign from 2012.

Last week, a series of new LCBO posters targeting women drinking while pregnant were both celebrated and deemed shameful and offensive, showing the many opinions on this behaviour. 

While Health Canada does not recommend consumption of any type of alcohol during pregnancy, some small studies have shown drinking wine, for example, won't have an effect on your baby.

FASD can lead to a range of physical, cognitive and behavioural disabilities that are a result of drinking alcohol during pregnancy, according to Health Canada. Although FASD is incurable, it is also highly preventable.

CBC adds Nunavut is said to have a high rate of children born with the disorder, but statistics are unavailable. 

Pauktuutit, a national non-profit representing Inuit women in Canada, has implemented programs meant to educate women and front-line workers on the effects of FASD.

Friday, August 8, 2014

Lead Developer Of HPV Vaccines Comes Clean, Warns Parents & Young Girls It’s All A Giant Deadly Scam - See more

Lead Developer Of HPV Vaccines Comes Clean, Warns Parents & Young Girls It’s All A Giant Deadly Scam - See more at:  http://www.thedailysheeple.com/lead-developer-of-hpv-vaccines-comes-clean-warns-parents-young-girls-its-all-a-giant-deadly-scam_012014#sthash.Ui5kJRbo.sch7RgCL.dpuf


Bloggers note: see Gardasil Researcher Admits Vaccine May Be More Dangerous than the Disease  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gardasil-researcher-admits-vaccine-may-be-more-dangerous-than-the-disease

4020

VACCINE-KILL-599x275
 
Dr. Diane Harper was a leading expert responsible for the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies which secured the approval of the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines, Gardasil™ and Cervarix™.  Dr. Harper also authored many of the published, scholarly papers about the vaccines.  

She is now the latest in a long string of experts who are pressing the red alert button on the devastating consequences and irrelevancy of these vaccines.  Dr. Harper made her surprising confession at the 4th International Converence on Vaccination which took place in Reston, Virginia.  Her speech, which was originally intended to promote the benefits of the vaccines, took a 180-degree turn when she chose instead to clean her conscience about the deadly vaccines so she “could sleep at night”.  The following is an excerpt from a story by Sarah Cain:

“Dr. Harper explained in her presentation that the cervical cancer risk in the U.S. is already extremely low, and that vaccinations are unlikely to have any effect upon the rate of cervical cancer in the United States.  In fact, 70% of all HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment in a year, and the number rises to well over 90% in two years.  Harper also mentioned the safety angle.  All trials of the vaccines were done on children aged 15 and above, despite them currently being marketed for 9-year-olds.

  So far, 15,037 girls have reported adverse side effects from Gardasil™ alone to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and this number only reflects parents who underwent the hurdles required for reporting adverse reactions.  At the time of writing, 44 girls are officially known to have died from these vaccines.  The reported side effects include Guillian BarrĂ© Syndrome (paralysis lasting for years, or permanently — sometimes eventually causing suffocation), lupus, seizures, blood clots, and brain inflammation. 

 Parents are usually not made aware of these risks.  Dr. Harper, the vaccine developer, claimed that she was speaking out, so that she might finally be able to sleep at night.  ’About eight in every ten women who have been sexually active will have HPV at some stage of their life,’ Harper says.  ’Normally there are no symptoms, and in 98 per cent of cases it clears itself.  But in those cases where it doesn’t, and isn’t treated, it can lead to pre-cancerous cells which may develop into cervical cancer.’” 

Although these two vaccines are marketed as protection against cervical cancer, this claim is purely hypothetical.  Studies have proven “there is no demonstrated relationship between the condition being vaccinated for and the rare cancers that the vaccine might prevent, but it is marketed to do that nonetheless. 


 In fact, there is no actual evidence that the vaccine can prevent any cancer.  From the manufacturers own admissions, the vaccine only works on 4 strains out of 40 for a specific venereal disease that dies on its own in a relatively short period, so the chance of it actually helping an individual is about about the same as the chance of her being struck by a meteorite.”
UPDATE #1: Since coming forward with the truth about the devastating consequences of the HPV vaccine, Dr. Harper has been victim of a relentless campaign attempting to discredit the validity of her claims.  Harper was even misquoted by British tabloid The Sunday Express which printed a false story loaded with fabricated quotations attributed to Harper. 

 In an interview with The Guardian, Harper makes it very clear about what exactly she said in order to protect herself from a potential lawsuit.  In an interview with CBS NEWS, Harper clarifies her position, and once again makes it crystal clear just how devastating this vaccine can be: “If we vaccinate 11 year olds and the protection doesn’t last … we’ve put them at harm from side effects, small but real, for no benefit,” says Dr. Harper. “The benefit to public health is nothing, there is no reduction in cervical cancers, they are just postponed, unless the protection lasts for at least 15 years, and over 70% of all sexually active females of all ages are vaccinated.”  

She also says that enough serious side effects have been reported after Gardasil use that the vaccine could prove riskier than the cervical cancer it purports to prevent.  Cervical cancer is usually entirely curable when detected early through normal Pap screenings.

“The risks of serious adverse events including death reported after Gardasil use in (the JAMA article by CDC’s Dr. Barbara Slade) were 3.4/100,000 doses distributed,” Harper tells CBS NEWS.  ”The rate of serious adverse events on par with the death rate of cervical cancer.  Gardasil has been associated with at least as many serious adverse events as there are deaths from cervical cancer developing each year.  Indeed, the risks of vaccination are underreported in Slade’s article, as they are based on a denominator of doses distributed from Merck’s warehouse.  

Up to a third of those doses may be in refrigerators waiting to be dispensed as the autumn onslaught of vaccine messages is sent home to parents the first day of school.  Should the denominator in Dr. Slade’s work be adjusted to account for this, and then divided by three for the number of women who would receive all three doses, the incidence rate of serious adverse events increases up to five fold. How does a parent value that information,” said Harper.

“Parents and women must know that deaths occurred,” Harper tells CBS NEWS.  “Not all deaths that have been reported were represented in Dr. Slade’s work, one-third of the death reports were unavailable to the CDC, leaving the parents of the deceased teenagers in despair that the CDC is ignoring the very rare but real occurrences that need not have happened if parents were given information stating that there are real, but small risks of death surrounding the administration of Gardasil.”  

She also worries that Merck’s aggressive marketing of the vaccine may have given women a false sense of security. “The future expectations women hold because they have received free doses of Gardasil purchased by philanthropic foundations, by public health agencies or covered by insurance is the true threat to cervical cancer in the future. 

 Should women stop Pap screening after vaccination, the cervical cancer rate will actually increase per year. Should women believe this is preventive for all cancers — something never stated, but often inferred by many in the population — a reduction in all health care will compound our current health crisis. 

 Should Gardasil not be effective for more than 15 years, the most costly public health experiment in cancer control will have failed miserably.”  Harper notes that her concern for the vaccine’s deadly side effects applies only to women in the Western world.  ”Of course, in developing countries where there is no safety Pap screening for women repeatedly over their lifetimes, the risks of serious adverse events may be acceptable as the incidence rate of cervical cancer is five to 12 times higher than in the US, dwarfing the risk of death reported after Gardasil.”

UPDATE #2: The National Vaccine Information Center HAS CONFIRMED two virologists, Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski have filed a lawsuit against their former employer and vaccine manufacturer Merck.  NVIC writes: “The lawsuit alleges that Merck defrauded the U.S. for over 10 years by overstating the MMR vaccine’s effectivenes.  The virologists claim in their lawsuit that they ‘Witnessed firsthand the improper testing and data falseification in which Merck engaged to artificially inflate the vaccine’s efficacy findings.”  NVIC president and co-founder, Barbara Loe Fisher, warns of the disturbingly cozy relationship and overwhelming conflict of interest between federal agencies charged with vaccine safety oversight (such as the Centers for Disease Control) and vaccine manufacturers.  Merck’s global vaccine sales total more than $20 BILLION A YEAR.

As the world’s pharmaceutical giants continue to be driven less by moral accountability and more by profit and shareholder-driven bottom lines, we are going to see more and more products such as this vaccine which are marketed as “essential to one’s survival.”  While some vaccines are indeed essential, such as vaccines for polio and measles, the HPV vaccine is a new beast entirely.  To learn more about how pharmaceutical giants are putting profits ahead of ethics you need to watch FRONTLINE’s terrifying new documentary “Hunting The Nightmare Bacteria.”    


VAERS2

- See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/lead-developer-of-hpv-vaccines-comes-clean-warns-parents-young-girls-its-all-a-giant-deadly-scam_012014#sthash.Ui5kJRbo.sch7RgCL.dpuf

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Research identifies 140 human trafficking victims in Ottawa

Research identifies 140 human trafficking victims in Ottawa 3937

Researchers say they discovered 140 human trafficking victims in Ottawa over the course of a nine-month investigation into the scope of sexual exploitation in the city.

According to a report released Wednesday, the victims were almost exclusively female, most frequently ranged in age from 12 to 25 years old and 16-year-olds were the most vulnerable to manipulative recruiting tactics that allowed human traffickers to prey upon susceptibilities such as the need for economic support, social acceptance and the desire for love and affection.

And pimps are recruiting the teenagers and young women from neighbours ranging from the ByWard Market and Vanier to the suburbs of Ottawa south and Kanata, according to the report prepared by PACT-Ottawa, or Persons Against the Crime of Trafficking Humans. Girls as young as nine are targeted at parties, shelters, group homes, social housing establishments, the Ottawa Central Bus Station and methadone clinics, the report found.
PACT-Ottawa, a non-profit corporation working to prevent human trafficking, held a press conference for the release of their Project imPACT Local Safety Audit Report by lead-author Elise Wohlbold (L) and co-author Katie LeMay, in Ottawa, July 30, 2014.
PACT-Ottawa, a non-profit corporation working to prevent human trafficking, held a press conference for the release of their Project imPACT Local Safety Audit Report by lead-author Elise Wohlbold (L) and co-author Katie LeMay, in Ottawa, July 30, 2014.

David Kawai / Ottawa Citizen
The number of human trafficking victims is higher than anyone anticipated, according to researcher Elise Wohlbold, the lead author of a report examining the situation in Ottawa.

“Human trafficking is happening in Ottawa. It’s happening to youth and it’s happening to youth of all different backgrounds and races,” said Wohlbold. “There are far more (victims) than what people were expecting.”

Of the 140 victims identified, some were reluctant to report being trafficked since they felt a sense of gratitude for being cared for, loved or simply accepted for who they are by the traffickers, according to the report.

The number is considerably higher than the number of cases that have resulted in arrests or criminal trials, a discrepancy researchers attribute to fear or misplaced loyalty to their abusers.

Ninety per cent of the victims identified in the PACT-Ottawa report are Canadian and from the Ottawa area. Youth who have been marginalized by race, class, disabilities, gender ideology and sexual orientation are at the highest risk of being trafficked.

The research report is part of a two-year pilot project that received $200,000 in funding from Status of Women Canada. Similar projects are being carried out in the York region and in Edmonton.
As part of the project, PACT-Ottawa has now prepared an action plan that will involve collaborating with the Ottawa Coalition to End Human Trafficking to provide training to front line staff such as health-care professionals, social workers, police officers and other community service organizations.

They also hope to educate and empower youth by promoting gender equality through existing laws and programs that reduce violence against women and promote positive gender identities.

According to Wohlbold, emphasis needs to be placed on group homes, high schools, social housing and shelters. Education and public awareness is also needed, specifically tailored towards youth in schools, she said.

Ottawa has seen a number of high-profile court cases involving human trafficking, including the trial of three teenage girls who pimped out other teens for sex. Two of the girls pleaded guilty, while a third was found guilty.

In another case, Jamie Byron was sent to prison for six years for pimping out a 17-year-old from hotels in Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal. The girl testified she had been forced to have sex with more than 100 men.

Wohlbold said once the victims are recruited and groomed, traffickers exercise “tremendous control” over them both psychologically and physically, leaving victims not only fearful for their own lives but also for the safety of friends and relatives.

 That, along with a distrust for police or psychological grooming keep them from going to the authorities, she said.

One woman told the researchers she was groomed for months by a trafficker she thought was her boyfriend, then gang-raped and sold for sex from a private home for weeks.

The only contact she had was with “clients.” Private parties are among the most common places victims are trafficked. She never went to police, a common theme.

One former local trafficker told the researchers girls were “easy” to recruit as they were looking for “fast money and a luxurious lifestyle.”

Once the girls were “in the game,” it was difficult to get out because the trafficker used violence, blackmail and threats. On average, he’d earn $1,000 a night from a girl, then keep the money.

Friday, July 25, 2014

Evangelicals are a convenient target in the prostitution debate

Julia Beazley:

For decriminalization proponents, it's easier to discredit Evangelicals than the larger abolitionist cause.3920
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jonathan HaywardFor decriminalization proponents, it's easier to discredit Evangelicals than the larger abolitionist cause.
 

Much attention is being paid to the role of Evangelical Christian voices — or those deemed Evangelical by association — in the debate over Bill C-36, the new proposed prostitution law. For some time now, those in favour of decriminalizing prostitution have been trying to frame the debate in us-and-them terms, “them” being evangelical groups with abolitionist views on prostitution.

After the Supreme Court heard the Bedford case, I remember listening to interviews with co-applicant Valerie Scott and lawyer Alan Young, and being surprised to hear them singling out “the Evangelicals” and seeking to discredit our arguments as moralistic.

Although one of the main parties opposing the court challenge was an impressive coalition of national women’s organizations and survivor groups, they chose to use valuable airtime to talk about what the Evangelicals had to say — or rather, what they assumed the Evangelicals had to say , which wasn’t what we’d said at all.


The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has a reputation for mounting well-researched, well-informed and well-reasoned arguments.

 On this issue in particular, we are well-connected with women’s groups and frontline organizations, and most importantly with survivors of prostitution and the groups representing them.

Their stories, their voices and their experiences have very much shaped and informed our position on the issue.
It’s particularly disheartening, then, to see some survivor voices discredited as either Evangelical or connected to Evangelicals. It is true that some have found faith — Evangelical or not — in their journey out of prostitution.

But that does not, and should not in any way, negate their lived experiences or the strength of their voices in this debate.

Why the consistent focus on the Evangelical angle? It seems fairly transparent, actually. It is far easier to seek to discredit our voice — and those aligned with us by association — than it is to contend with the multitude of voices of survivors and women’s groups who take the same abolitionist position.

It would be ridiculous to suggest that the many survivors advocating for laws that target the demand for paid sex don’t know what they’re talking about.

 Or that the many women’s organizations and frontline service providers don’t understand the realities of prostitution.

Or that the police, the Manitoba Attorney-General, prominent lawyers and researchers are simply being moralistic in their positioning.
We are motivated by the belief that all people have inherent dignity and worth, and should not be treated as objects for another’s gratification or profit
But, oh, the Evangelicals. Far simpler to discredit us, and the whole abolitionist perspective along with us, as though we were its only or main proponent.

The EFC is guided by biblical principles that compel care for the vulnerable and inform the duty of care we owe one another as human beings.

We are motivated by the belief that all people have inherent dignity and worth, and should not be treated as objects for another’s gratification or profit.

We share the widely held position that prostitution is rooted in the historical subordination of women and is, at its core, a form of violence, inequality and exploitation.

We are passionate about working towards a society where all people — and in this case particularly women and children — can live free from exploitation, in all its forms.

Many organizations serving our nation’s most vulnerable and victimized are run and staffed by people of faith. This is a public good. A faith that gets to work and gets its hands dirty is faith at its best.

And so the EFC has been engaged in the debate about our prostitution laws, intervening before the Supreme Court, advocating for the abolition of prostitution before our parliamentarians, and testifying before the Justice Committee about the strengths and weaknesses of Bill C-36. We do this because we care deeply about the issue and the people affected, as do the many evangelicals across the country we have the privilege of representing.


We’re flattered by the attention, but not at the expense of the voices of survivors. What they have to say in this debate cannot — must not — be ignored.

To obscure their voices beneath a manufactured controversy about why Evangelicals are at the table is disingenuous. Let’s refocus the debate on what matters most.

National Post
Julia Beazley is a policy analyst with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

Thursday, June 26, 2014

If you don't support same-sex marriage, don't look for a legal career in Canada

3675   http://leazsingh.blogspot.ca/2014/06/if-you-dont-support-same-sex-marriage.html


Currently there is something like a collision of two galaxies going on here in Canada. With its efforts to start a small Christian law school, Trinity Western University has set off a massive head-on confrontation between the same-sex rights movement and Evangelical Christianity.

The result so far has been an incredible and unprecedented war within the legal profession, which has seen
Ontario and Nova Scotia’s law societies take controversial and shocking steps to bar TWU graduates from becoming licensed in their provinces. In British Columbia, we have witnessed literally thousands of lawyers revolt against their own law society and demand that it, too, reverse its earlier positive decision and take a stand against Trinity Western University. And now, with the launch of Trinity Western’s legal challenge against the worst rebels with a cause, the whole show is on the road and headed for a finale in the Supreme Court.

Community Rules: Is it okay to say no to gay sex on campus?

At the epicenter of this storm is this question: can a Canadian law school ask its students to agree that same-sex marriage is wrong? Trinity Western University maintains a
community covenant that spells out its Christian code of conduct, beliefs and mission. This covenant is 4 pages long and asks its students to, among other things, ““treat people and ideas with charity and respect” and “cultivate Christian virtues”.

That would all be just fine, but the covenant also prohibits sexual intimacy “that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman” and emphasizes that sexual intimacy is “reserved for marriage between one man and one woman”. All students and faculty are asked to agree to this covenant if they choose to attend Trinity Western University.

Unfair discrimination or religious freedom?

Many of the lawyers who have been up in arms about Trinity Western University are alleging that this covenant discriminates against LGBTQ persons by making them feel not welcome on campus, by asking them in effect to deny their sexuality and requiring them to abstain from sexual relations even in a civil marriage. The upshot of the argument is that a school which discriminates against gays and lesbians isn’t qualified to teach law.

But the word “discrimination” already skews the debate towards the perspective of TWU’s opponents. Here is another way to pose the question: does Trinity Western University have the freedom of religion to maintain a campus covenant which asks students to abide by its religious teachings, including the tenet that sexual relations are reserved for heterosexual marriage?

There seems to be no possible compromise here. If Trinity Western puts its religious morality into action on the campus of its fledgling law school, then homosexuals will cry discrimination. But if this small, private Christian school is forced to allow its campus to become the antithesis of its own religious faith teachings, this is a serious restriction on the public expression of its faith, and might even eliminate the very raison d’etre why such a school exists in the first place. A religious private school is not in the business of providing a secular education that merely echoes the creeds of contemporary political correctness.

To put it bluntly, either sexual orientation or religious orientation will have to retreat into the closet at Trinity Western. Either the gays and lesbians who choose to attend, fully aware of Trinity Western’s creed regarding same-sex sexual relations, will promise to respect the school’s faith beliefs, or the Evangelical Christians that run this small, faith-based school will have to forget about maintaining a campus reflective of their own religious teachings and morality.

The Supreme Court votes in favour of religious freedom

Thirteen years ago, when the Supreme Court of Canada considered this very question, it decided in favour of religious freedom for Trinity Western University. In a case that involved the B.C. teachers union refusing to allow TWU graduates to become teachers due to their opposition to same-sex marriage, the Court acknowledged that gays and lesbians might not want to apply to TWU, but it concluded that no major harm would be done by such students going elsewhere.

In other words, the Supreme Court found that protecting the religious freedom and freedom of expression of Evangelical Christians at Trinity Western University, as a faith community formed by free association based on their adherence to certain religious and moral values, was more important than the right of anyone to engage in open same-sex relationships on their small campus, especially given the enormous wealth of alternative schools available in British Columbia. In the Court’s own words: “While homosexuals may be discouraged from attending TWU, a private institution based on particular religious beliefs, they will not be prevented from becoming teachers.”

Rebellion of the lawyers

But the times, they are a-changing. While the 2001 decision of the Supreme Court is still good law here in Canada, many of our most prominent lawyers are now openly defying this decision, as evidenced by the tidal wave of protest by law societies across the country.

Ontario, Nova Scotia and B.C. are but the tip of the iceberg. Important groups of lawyers in other provinces have also been been voicing their opposition to TWU. In Alberta, the President of the Law Society issued a statement
saying that “we are aware of and concerned about the impact of the TWU community covenant on gay and lesbian students”, and “we would welcome a judicial determination on this question. We would also welcome the opportunity to work together with the other law societies in Canada, through the Federation, to consider amending the law degree approval criteria to address these issues.” Manitoba’s law society met on this question in late May and decided to do nothing because “ the Federation of Law Societies of Canada may shortly be reviewing the national requirements”.

End of religious freedom for all lawyers in Canada?
What is coming next? Get ready for the end of religious freedom in the legal profession, if the national Federation of Law Societies decides to change the law degree approval criteria to include some kind of litmus test on same-sex marriage for faith-based schools. Will official support for same-sex marriage soon become a prerequisite to being an approved faculty of law? Will support for same-sex marriage perhaps even become a prerequisite to licensing for individual lawyers in Canada?

Move over Justin Trudeau, your
abortion decree within the Liberal party will have just been made small peas by the lawyers of Canada. Indeed, it is a short step from requiring Trinity Western to abandon its religious morality on campus to requiring all lawyers to personally support same-sex marriage. Lawyers who believe that sexual intimacy should be reserved for marriage between a man and a woman, even if they are not graduates of Trinity Western University, represent the same alleged threat of “discrimination” in the legal profession, so it follows that sooner (rather than later) they too will be an item on the law societies’ agenda.

They said this would never happen

How far we have come, at breakneck speed. Rewind to 2005, when same-sex marriage was just being enacted. At the time, opponents of the new law were being smothered in all kinds of assurances of religious freedom:
  • The Supreme Court stated, in its Reference Re: Same-sex Marriage, that “The protection of freedom of religion afforded by s. 2(a) of the Charter is broad and jealously guarded”.
  • The Civil Marriage Act itself was padded with rhetoric protecting divergence of opinion, stating that “nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion and, in particular, the freedom of members of religious groups to hold and declare their religious beliefs”, and “it is not against the public interest to hold and publicly express diverse views on marriage”, and:
“no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.”
Note that in the above paragraph, Parliament is only promising that there won’t be any federal law that violates religious freedom on this question. Right from the start, there was no assurance of religious freedom continuing to be respected by quasi-governmental institutions like the Federation of Law Societies. Still, in the social climate as it was back then, most people never considered the present situation a possibility. The belief in the traditional heterosexual definition of marriage still had considerable clout and respect among the leaders of society.

Christians as the new anti-Semites, racists and misogynists

A decade later, as I discussed in an earlier
article, Christians who oppose same-sex marriage are being proclaimed the new public enemies, analogous to irrational racists, anti-Semites or misogynists. The British Columbia and Ontario law societies provide online public transcripts and even recordings of their debates on Trinity Western, and it is disturbing to see such comparisons being made by numerous Benchers. Keep in mind, these are some of the most influential lawyers in Canadian society!

One of the most outspoken Ontario Benchers who opposes Trinity Western is Clayton Ruby, a prominent defense lawyer whose clients have included the first openly gay Canadian Member of Parliament, Omar Khadr’s brother, and the anti-capitalist group that started the Occupy Wall Street movement. Mr. Ruby has called the belief in heterosexual marriage “
stupid” and “hateful”, has compared it to racism and anti-Semitism. He has further said:
“A minority within Christianity is entitled to believe that being gay is antithetical to Christianity; that it is an abomination. They are entitled to teach such silliness and try to persuade others to adopt that view. But we should remember that though they assert that the Bible is the sacred authority, and must be accepted literally, law schools ought to accept and teach the Constitution. In Canada we draw a line between discriminatory belief and discriminatory acts.”
Free to think, but not to act

If Clayton Ruby and the increasing numbers of lawyers who appear to agree with him have their way, then our religious “freedom” will effectively be reduced to the confines of our heads. Since mind control has yet to be developed, we will still be “free” to think whatever we want, but don’t try living out your religious beliefs in any public way.

Mr. Ruby doesn’t want to sound that extreme just yet, and so for now he states that Trinity Western has the right to teach their “silliness” (though he would not permit their graduates within the ranks of his profession). The trouble is, the logic of his own analogy to anti-semitism and other forms of irrational hate demands that our laws should not permit such crazy, hateful beliefs to be propagated on any campus. Would we allow any school in Canada to teach white supremacy?

If Trinity Western’s Covenant is really “hateful” for its confirmation of traditional marriage, then surely, gay students who choose to attend TWU should still be spared demeaning and “hateful” lectures on how their sexual behavior is not acceptable. If Mr. Ruby is pressed on the issue, he would most likely have to concede that Trinity Western should not be permitted to be teaching “hate” at all. (Indeed, he contradicts himself later in the same quote by insisting that law schools should teach the Constitution - thus, how can Trinity Western’s law school also teach its “silliness”?).

Christian beliefs as the new "hate speech"

This is where we are: things are getting serious as the effects of the legalization of same-sex marriage are coming home to roost, so to speak. The Civil Marriage Act did much more than usher in gay marriage. It has helped to alter our fundamental attitudes about the nature of marriage, and it has enabled a far more effective social ostracism of its opponents.

Now this shift in philosophies is hardening into an official public exclusion of proponents of traditional marriage from professional life and even from the realm of education. The very ability to oppose same-sex marriage is becoming circumscribed as it becomes synonymous with irrational “hate” and discrimination, and thus increasingly falls outside the once-promised protection of religious freedom and freedom of conscience.

In 2001, the Supreme Court
argued that “It cannot be reasonably concluded that private institutions are protected but that their graduates are de facto considered unworthy of fully participating in public activities.” The Supreme Court found that religious freedom protected Trinity Western and its covenant, and therefore, its graduates could not be excluded from professional organizations.

Today, many of our lawyers are thinking backwards: they find the belief in traditional marriage so odious that they are unwilling to admit TWU graduates among their ranks; as such, they insist on forcing the conclusion that Trinity Western’s Covenant is outside the protection of religions freedom, even in clear opposition to actual legal precedent.

The showdown is coming: stay tuned

Now that Trinity Western has gotten the ball rolling into the courts, the Supreme Court will be addressing this issue again in the near future. Will it affirm the religious freedom of Trinity Western University, as it did over a decade ago? Or will the nine Justices move on with the times and agree with the majority of their Ontario colleagues, finding that Trinity Western must eviscerate itself as a faith institution if it wants to produce lawyers?

Religious freedom in Canada hangs in the balance, attacked by the very profession that is supposed to guard it most zealously. If our lawyers no longer uphold our freedoms of conscience and religion, then the future looks more totalitarian indeed.