The Shotgun Blog

« Mainstreet misogyny | Main | How Communists negotiate »

Thursday, July 03, 2008

Will the CBC even bother to cover this?

And now that we've once again dared to mention Henry Morgentaler, head waiter to the sexual revolution and the eugenics movement, you might be interested in knowing the following:

OTTAWA, July 3, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Campaign Life Coalition is organizing a demonstration for concerned Canadian citizens to protest the awarding of the Order of Canada to abortionist Henry Morgentaler and to seek its revocation.

WHERE: Rideau Hall – official residence of the Governor General of Canada

WHEN: Wednesday July 9, 2008 from 11:00am to 2:00pm.

CONTACT: Paul Lauzon clcottawa@rogers.com 613-729-0379

***

Campaign Life Coalition has also launched a petition to revoke Morgentaler's appointment to the Order of Canada.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on July 3, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e55385ebc58833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Will the CBC even bother to cover this?:

Comments

Does anyone know who decides who gets an "Order of Canada" award and what criteria they use?

Posted by: Tom | 2008-07-03 8:39:46 PM

Simply put, anyone but sitting politicians and judges are eligible. An advisory committee decides on a set number of candidates each year.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-03 8:51:04 PM

Be careful around Rideau Hall. The high priestess might rattle some chicken bones and put a curse on you.

Posted by: dp | 2008-07-03 8:57:12 PM

My conversation with CTV reporter Scott Laurie,

Please start at the bottom email and work up.

From: Merle T
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 10:47 PM
To: 'Scott Laurie'
Subject: RE: abortion.

Well Scott the Court did not I think intend to allow for abortion on demand in this country and that is what we have now. You just said there has been no law in 20 years. The parliment of Canda has not passed any legislation either so there is " no law" per say.
I disagree sorry that the charter enshrines abortion rights. What we have is a lot of weak and cowardly politicians of ALL stripes that refuse to introduce any limits to abortion in Canada.
Does a woman have the right under the charter to abort her baby at 18 weeks or later without any threat to her life if the pregnancy was carried to full term? Show me please where there is any limit on gestational age for abortion is Canada- there is none!!

Scott abortion clinic in Toronto
12 weeks pregnant $450.00
12 or 13 weeks pregnant $550.00
14 or 15 weeks pregnant $650.00

If you are a resident of another province, you will need to bring your medicare card for that province and the fees are as follows:

<12 weeks pregnant $300.00
12 or 13 weeks pregnant $400.00
14 or 15 weeks pregnant $500.00

Cabbagetown Women's Clinic offers women:
Both first trimester (5-12 weeks gestation) and second trimester (13-23 weeks gestation) therapeutic abortion procedures

Morgentaler clinic info:
Our clinics perform abortion procedures from approximately 7 weeks up to approximately 19 weeks gestation, however each location may have different provincial gestational guidelines. If your pregnancy is earlier or later than our gestational limits, we will do our best to help facilitate information or an appointment at another facility that can accommodate your needs.

23 Weeks Scott that is very late and no need for that abortion to be carried out due to a threat to the womans health.

So this is not helath care at all, this is abortion on demand whenever and for whatever reason. No need to award Henry for this. BTW I was also a clinic escort for Henry in Toronto at his former Harbord Street Clinic. My home home on harbord was also a safe house for woman awaiting an abortion.

Merle Terlesky

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Scott Laurie
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 10:23 PM
To: merlet
Subject: Re: abortion.

Well, in my research I found this:

Did the Supreme Court say that the existing law "violates a woman's right to security of person under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms...."?

Yes it did.

Is the Charter of Rights a part of the constitution?

Yes it is.

Has the court allowed a woman's right to access abortion to be protected by the charter?

Well - according to Justice Bertha Wilson in her opinion - "section 251 violated a woman's personal autonomy by preventing her from making decisions affecting her and her fetus' life. "

She wrote, "the woman's decision to abort her fetus is one that is so profound on so many levels that goes beyond being a medical decision and becomes a social and ethical one as well."

She continues...

"By removing the women's ability to make the decision and giving it to a committee would be a clear violation of their liberty and security of person."

So, yes, the court has given those rights protection.

Has a new law been adopted in the 20 years since this ruling?

Despite at least one attempt, no.

You disagree with my choice of the word "enshrined" - but the de facto effect of our court's ruling, until a new abortion law is passed, is that abortion is protected by the charter which has been entrenched in our constitution since 1982. .

I'm sure the country will continue to wrestle with this issue for generations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Merle T
To: Scott Laurie
Sent: Wed Jul 02 23:50:07 2008
Subject: abortion.

Dear Scott,

According to your commentary today you said that access to abortion was "enshrined" by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Morgentaler decision. That is simply not true. The court simply did away with the old law and left a huge lawless void in Canada with no real limits to gestational age for abortions.There is now no abortion law at the federal level at all and now Morgentaler has been awarded for making abortion on demand a reality in Canada.

Please do some research before making such statements.

Thank you,

Merle Terlesky

Calgary, Alberta

Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2008-07-03 9:10:12 PM

The order of Canada is now officially tainted. Well, tainted more anyway.

If Morgentaler truly wants what is best for Canada he would politely decline it. He's done well for himself (something like $11mil/ year from aborting babies in his privately owned for profit clinics) that should be enough validation for him.

On a personal note my older sister had an abortion when she was young and it has haunted her daily ever since. I know what she thinks of people like Morgentaler and the acclaim he receives. I need no other data to form my opinion of him and his recieving the Order of Canada.

Posted by: Hoser | 2008-07-03 9:13:46 PM

The order of Canada is now officially tainted. Well, tainted more anyway.

Posted by: Hoser | 2008-07-03 9:14:05 PM

Fair warning all, DON't CLICK TWICE!

Posted by: Hoser | 2008-07-03 9:17:14 PM

Eugenics movement? Give me a break, Terry.

Morgentaler is a man of great integrity who was willing to serve jail time to do what he knew to be right, and was fortunately vindicated by our high court several times over. He's served the cause of liberty and equality in this country, providing hundreds of women a safe and legal means to have an abortion. I am proud that our country has granted him such an honor.

If we want to talk about people who have dishonored the Order of Canada, let's talk about Conrad Black.

Posted by: Voice of Reason | 2008-07-03 9:24:12 PM

Get your head out of your ass V.of R.

Morgentaler was a businessman who identified a niche market that made him very, very wealthy. He didn't really need great surgical skills, since he wasn't trying to save lives. The humanitarian story was a sideshow. The real purpose of his crusade was making a lot of money.

Funny thing is, when an evangelist pulls this kind of charade guys like V of R are all over him.

Posted by: dp | 2008-07-03 9:35:58 PM

VofR,

"Morgentaler is a man of great integrity who was willing to serve jail time to do what he knew to be right, "
...

"He's served the cause of liberty and equality in this country,..."

I hope you feel the same way about the people who use this liberty and equality to express their opinions by protesting. After all, they will be doing what they "knew to be right" and some might even be "willing to serve jail time".

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-03 9:40:51 PM

VoR self-righteously wrote: "Eugenics movement? Give me a break, Terry."

OK, which arm?

VoR self-righteously wrote: "Morgentaler is a man of great integrity who was willing to serve jail time to do what he knew to be right, and was fortunately vindicated by our high court several times over."

Morgantaler is a shameless self-promoter who made a fortune performing illegal and clandestine operations. There was no more nobility to his motive of legalizing abortion than there is to a pimp or madam who wants to legalize prostitution. And I'd like to know how he "knew" he was right, when even the science available in his day, to say nothing of that available now, puts the lie to his convictions--if indeed they are convictions and not simply business instincts.

VoR self-righteously wrote: "He's served the cause of liberty and equality in this country, providing hundreds of women a safe and legal means to have an abortion. I am proud that our country has granted him such an honor."

Taking away a fetus's personhood makes it a de facto slave. It's a sick set of priorities that equates freedom with having your uterus Hoovered because you were too fucking lazy to use protection.

VoR self-righteously wrote: "If we want to talk about people who have dishonored the Order of Canada, let's talk about Conrad Black."

Yes, let's. We'll begin with the number of humans that he's killed for profit. But in a world where terrorists can get the Nobel Peace Prize for promising to be good, and failed Presidential candidates can get the same award for making a movie, I wish I could say I was more surprised.

This sad generation doesn't care how much it destroys even the highest honours and institutions, so long as it can fete itself and its heroes and bask in their own narcissism. Baby boomers. Everything they touch turns to ashes. Hurry up and die, already. The Sixties are over.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-03 9:48:32 PM

Shane- Don't paint us all with the same brush. Plenty of boomers saw through the bullshit AT THE TIME. I was 15 when the original hippy movement died, and we really thought those people were a joke. I saw the birth and death of the free love movement without being part of it. Sure I used a few illegal substances, but I quit long before I had a family.

I once had an argument with an NDP about abortion. He assured me that according to statistics, a very small percentage of abortions were used as birth control. Does that make as much sense to everyone else as it did me? I am pretty sure that 100% of abortions are for birth control. Unless I'm having trouble with definitions here.

Posted by: dp | 2008-07-03 10:26:53 PM

dp - Yes, he's done well for himself, and it seems like a very cunning move in retrospect. However, the SCC decision was far from certain, and he knew full well he could be rotting in the cell for years. That's not about business. It's about principles.

h2o273kk9 - You'll be glad to know that I do think protesters have a right to free expression, even when I disagree with them. I was absolutely disgusted by the GAP displays at UBC this year, but I aggressively defended their right to be there. I'm always disappointed when pro-choice groups try to silence debate, even when the tactics used by the opposing side are as distasteful and dishonest as GAP or Terry's eugenics comments.

Shane Matthews - I wish I could be surprised by your threats of violence, but I suppose that is a favorite trick of anti-choice radicals, isn't it?

Posted by: Voice of Reason | 2008-07-03 10:35:38 PM

dp,
I have to admit I saw through the hippy movement pretty early myself. I was a kid of perhaps 8 or 9 when I first witnessed some of them pushing around the nicest elderly man I ever knew at 3 am. He asked them to tone down their party.

Repeatedly, I had to deal with the beer bottles on the front lawn and noise at all hours.

There's more.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-03 10:35:45 PM

DP, there were over 100,000 abortions in Canada last year, or one for every three live births. That's a lot of broken condoms. Even Rome didn't create (and bump off) that many slaves per year.

And yes, I take your point about not all boomers exhibiting stereotypical behaviour. However, it is unfortunately that demographic's defining attribute, and few exemplify it better than Morgantaler. His self-regard is so Zeppelinesque he actually has the nerve to say, without a shred of modesty, that he deserves the honour. I'll bet that at the investiture ceremony he'll snatch the award from the Governor-General's hands and put it around his own neck--and then demand his crown and sceptre.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-03 10:37:42 PM

VofR

"I'm always disappointed when pro-choice groups try to silence debate, even when the tactics used by the opposing side are as distasteful and dishonest as GAP or Terry's eugenics comments."

Good but...
you are only "disappointed" when they silence debate...a fundamental right...yet you find freely expressed comments "disgusting" and "distasteful".

Ok. Nothing to add. I'll just absorb your distorted priorities.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-03 10:39:27 PM

No, I'm disappointed when they TRY to. Note that at UBC, despite the fact that one group tried to, the GAP display was allowed. I'm glad that the UBC administration didn't bow to that pressure, and would have been disgusted if they did.

Since they didn't, I was able to be disgusted by the distasteful comparisons to genocide, the devaluation of the Holocaust, and the belligerent nature of the anti-choice protesters, one of whom used her stroller and child as a battering ram against the counter-protesters, accusing them of wanting to kill her baby. It was a shameful display.

Yup, I'm all for letting the anti-choice people show their violent, fanatical colors.

Posted by: Voice of Reason | 2008-07-03 10:47:54 PM

VoR wrote: “Yes, he's done well for himself, and it seems like a very cunning move in retrospect. However, the SCC decision was far from certain, and he knew full well he could be rotting in the cell for years. That's not about business. It's about principles.”

Not so. Business always entails risk. The great the risk, the higher the profit. He merely smelled change in the wind and was the first to hoist his sail for more propitious climes.

VoR wrote: “I'm always disappointed when pro-choice groups try to silence debate, even when the tactics used by the opposing side are as distasteful and dishonest as GAP or Terry's eugenics comments.”

Actually, you’re right. At over a million abortions per year in North America since 1973 (on average), the pro-choice crowd and their self-infatuated, penis-hopping acolytes had actually surpassed Mengele and Eichmann by the time Reagan was voted President, and that was twenty-eight years ago.

VoR wrote: “Shane Matthews - I wish I could be surprised by your threats of violence, but I suppose that is a favorite trick of anti-choice radicals, isn't it?”

That’s it—duck the hard questions. Typical. You enthusiastically support the termination of 1.1 million unborn per year by means of live dismemberment, so I hope you realize how foul hypocrite you look trying to play the victim card. But then, if there’s one thing the pro-abortion crowd is good at, it’s running away from inconvenient truths even as they break the arms patting themselves on the back for representing the pinnacle of human social, cultural and moral evolution in the face of those who can actually figure out how a condom works. It isn’t Right-wingers you see throwing rocks at police, dearie.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-03 10:50:04 PM

Giving Morguentaler the Order of Canada was like giving that other terrorist Yasir Arafat the Nobel Peace prize. It ended the credibility of the prize.

I the case the Nobel prize is was further trashed by the doling out of it to that eco terrorist Fat Albert Gore.

Who decides who gets those prizes? Exclusively the political terrorists of the left.

Posted by: John V | 2008-07-03 10:50:06 PM

And how many of you Shotgun blogers will go to Rideau Hall for this demonstration ?

Posted by: Marc | 2008-07-03 10:52:34 PM

Don't look at me Marc. I don't even know how to get there.

Posted by: dp | 2008-07-03 11:19:31 PM

I never understood how someone who's lived through the horrors of a Nazi extermination camp could enthusiastically choose to be a professional abortionist as a career until I watched the biography "Henry" last year.
His pathological need for attention and female admiration is what's driven him,not his concern for woman's rights.
He himself admits to that in the film.
Watch "Henry" and see if you don't come to the conclusion that this is one sick individual.

Posted by: Bocanut | 2008-07-04 12:08:05 AM

Wow - only a few racist and veiled anti-semitic comments so far... classy. Bet none of you jokers show up on the 9th.

Fortunately, because Canada has freedom of choice, all of you dudes can carry the fetus to full term if you want. Good luck with that...

Posted by: joe bleau | 2008-07-04 2:46:57 AM

Henry Morgentaler has got rich--he's a millionaire--off the avails of abortion: violently taking the lives of others' offspring. You'd think that given his mother, father, and brother also had their lives taken violently in the Holocaust he'd have more respect for human life.

My take on him is that he is angry as Hell about what happened to his family and that in a twisted, perverted logic, his anger has somehow justified and fuelled his "fight" for Canadian women's right (sic) to abort their babies. Canada treated Jewish people fleeing from Europe very badly--we turned their boats back. Who knows what goes on in the recesses of Dr. Death's mind?

Morgentaler isn't even an obstetrician/gynecologist. He's a general practitioner and often didn't perform abortions very well. More than once he was disciplined for botched abortions. He's no hero. He's a self-aggrandizing, vacuum of not only body parts but money, money, money.

The Order of Canada is now a sham and a disgrace.

Posted by: batb | 2008-07-04 8:26:47 AM

Good post, batb.

Says it all for me.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-07-04 8:38:52 AM

Hey Shane,

question for you. You were outraged the other day about people taking to the street to voice their opinion and disgust. I think you're statement was: "Mob Rule is no rule" or something to that effect.

Anyway, considering that the "Mob" is taking to the Streets again, can I expect you voice your disgust about this Mob rule here as well? Or is this different because it is a topic you support?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-04 9:10:06 AM

I cannot shake the feeling that M********** took sick pleasure in doing what he did.

What a sick demented freak. I cannot think of a better way to debase, devalue and destroy the Order of Canada than giving it to this horrid twisted little piece of shit.

Epsi

Posted by: Epsilon | 2008-07-04 9:13:24 AM

As a general note on the topic. All the ones who decry Morgenthaler for what he did I would like to point a few things out here:

1. He did what he believed.
2. He did it within the existing system (which should get full approval from Shane).
3. The Supremecourt passed down a ruling based on their interpretation of the law (that is, after all, what they do).
4. I haven't read the ruling (maybe I should) but usually Supremecourts are pretty clear what made them come to their decision.
5. It was the politicans AFTERWARDS who dropped the ball and did not try to go back and write a law that would be in accordance with the Supremecourt ruling.

If you want to blame someone, blame the politicans, not Morgenthaler.

Finally, the debate has raged in a lot of places for a long time. In Germany this has been going on as far back as 1920 (Russia and the former eastern block ironically enough were way farther with setting a legal framework for this, they had one back in the 1930s).

The German law (after several quabbles with the Supremecourt) now has the following ruling.

Abortions can be done in one of three cases:

1. The woman decides within the first trimester. She has to go to a consultation, but this is the only requirement. In the original passing of the law this was legal, then challenged in the Supremecourt who ruled that this cannot be as the Fetus has a right to live. The law was rewritten, now it is neither legal nor illegal, essentially there is no determination in the law if it is permitted or not. (See, having politicians that READ supremecourt ruling and try to fix their laws is a useful thing to have).

2. Criminal acts, e.g. in the case of Rape the woman has a right for an abortion within the first trimester. This clearly has been made legal under German law. The ruling of the Supremecourt recognizes that the woman was / is a victim and thus has the right to "remedy the situation" (My words, not the Supremecourts).

3. Medical reasons. If there are Medical reasons for an abortion (e.g. Mother's life is in danger, Fetus wouldn't surive, extreme deformations etc.) an abortion is legal too. In this case there is NO limit on when the abortion can be performed, it is up to the doctors to decide if this is a valid option. The reason for the "open endedness" in this case is that there are certain conditions that aren't diagnosable until late in the pregnancy.

Now, why has nobody in Canada tried to go back and try and put some legal framework / limits around this? Don't blame the Libs, it was the Cons who where in power after the Supremecourt rulig and they didn't do it either.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-04 9:18:45 AM

What a sick demented freak. I cannot think of a better way to debase, devalue and destroy the Order of Canada than giving it to this horrid twisted little piece of shit.

Posted by: Epsilon | 4-Jul-08 9:13:24 AM

What about the Priest that was charged with (at least) two counts of Child abuse? Incidently he gave his back yesterday after the Morgenthaler appointment.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-04 9:20:04 AM

>"Now, why has nobody in Canada tried to go back and try and put some legal framework / limits around this? Don't blame the Libs, it was the Cons who where in power after the Supreme court ruling and they didn't do it either."
Snowrunner | 4-Jul-08 9:18:45 AM

Simple.
The majority of the Supreme court at the time found that the abortion law was "Unconstitutional" because it violated a woman's right to an abortion.

The problem was and is "there is no right to abortions in section 7 nor any other laws."

Simply put by McIntyre:

"the Courts must not go about creating rights not explicitly found in the Charter nor interpret Charter rights to protect interests that the rights were not initially intending to protect. Nowhere in any constitutional texts, history or philosophies is there support for any such rights. Furthermore, there is no societal consensus that these interests should be protected either."

Since the majority of the Supremes at the time invented a "Charter Right" out of whole cloth there was no point in Parliament to write new legislation.

THE SUPREME COURT HAD JUST SHOWN IT'S SUPREMACY OVER THE CANADIAN PARLIAMENT!

It wasn't a matter of crafting a new law.
It was a matter of FIRING the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-07-04 9:40:18 AM

Speller,

the German Supremecourt had similar objections. The German parliament went back (in West Germany) several times to make the law work with the Basic Law.

What it TAKES are politicians who are willing to make something happen, not politicians who want the quick fix.

The problem these days is of course that nobody would that that thing with a 10ft pole, the only ones still "debating" this are the extremists on both sides.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-04 9:58:25 AM

I wonder if Kevorkian would be on the waiting list if he were Canadian? I've always seen similarities with those two twisted little men. Dr. Death cooled his heals for about 7 years for his humanitarian efforts.

The truth is I have no strong opinion on either issue, other than the fact I don't want to pay for it. I just think worshipping a couple of obviously demented individuals is a mistake.

I just heard Mama Doc Jean is handing another medal. This time to a non-Canadian (first ever). The gates have swung open.

Posted by: dp | 2008-07-04 10:00:57 AM

Snowrunner wrote: "Anyway, considering that the "Mob" is taking to the Streets again, can I expect you voice your disgust about this Mob rule here as well? Or is this different because it is a topic you support?"

I don't like street demonstrations, period. Those staging them seem to think that because they're mad at something that the whole city should stop what it's doing and take part. So no, I don't support the upcoming demonstrations. I'm glad you asked.

However, let's remember whose side is more guilty of street disorders and mass intimidation. I think you'll find your side of the scales hits the counter with a resounding thud. The "protest, pot, and pussy" generation wasn't campaigning for Right-wing values, me long-beaked bucko. And recall the Democratic and Republican National Conventions of 2004?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-04 10:39:26 AM

Snowrunner,

1. You have no idea whether Morgantaler did what he believed. Given his general conduct and what he has let slip later, it seems more likely he did what he believed would be profitable. You have fallen into the common trap of purporting to know the mind of another.

2. Breaking the law and being jailed at least once is not “doing it within the system.” If someone assassinated Prime Minister Harper and was jailed, only to be pardoned at a later date for some unfathomable reason, would you consider that “doing it within the system” also?

3. The Supreme Court held that the existing law was invalid as written. That does not amount to a carte-blanche exoneration of Morgantaler’s practice, nor the baby-ripping free-for-all which followed.

4. The ruling is 185 pages long with no fewer than three reasons given, none garnering more than two signatures. To call it clear would be a stretch to say the least. Moreover, because of the divided reasoning behind the ruling, the precedent thus set is not legally binding. Now 20 years later we find that the vote to award the Order of Canada, while usually unanimous or nearly so, was not even close in Morgantaler’s case. I smell activism in both cases.

5. Your point about the spinelessness of the politicians is well taken, but getting the pulse of the Canadian people is a far less precise affair than, say, reading the mood of the American people. Politicians in either country have to build a career based on an ability to pick the winning horse. And let’s be blunt—anyone who bets his money that women voters will be irrational about this issue will cross the finish line first.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-04 10:55:42 AM

Snow, you asked about the child abusing priest who gave back his Order of Canada.

What the **** does that have to do with M**********?

Typical leftoid trying to deflect arguments.

But treating that as an entirely separate item of debate, let me say that child abusing priests should be denackered and sent to prison for a LOOOOOOOOOONG time. This sick priest should have his Order of Canada taken away too. May he also rot in hell with M**********.

Epsi

Posted by: Epsilon | 2008-07-04 11:53:10 AM

...while I don't agree with Dr. M's receiving the Order of Canada, look at the company he kept at the reception.

The UAW Union boss got one too.

Order of Canada = reduced to a shiny trinket.

Posted by: tomax7 | 2008-07-04 12:07:23 PM

tomax7: Order of Canada = reduced to a shiny trinket.

'How about a tarnished trinket?

Posted by: batb | 2008-07-04 12:28:32 PM

The UAW boss (assuming he's one of the honest ones) can at least be said to be standing up for the rights of his members. While I don't approve of trade unions' pettier acts of thuggery, and I think the unions may have been so short-sighted as to bargain themselves right out of a livelihood, the intent was basically good and there was likely a minimum of human blood spilled in the process. Morgantaler stands for savage greed, limitless self-aggrandizement, massive enslavement, and massive murder. Watching the sixties types swoon over this piece of dirt reminds me of Hitler's early speeches.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-04 12:44:08 PM

Shane, I'm one of "the sixties types" who's paying for my sins now. I know it's hard not to lump all of us together.

But, some of us have truly seen the light and have been tirelessly working to get the message out: that taking the lives of the unborn is no answer to a social problem. Killing is no solution. It creates a whole set of other problems.

I can tell you, from personal experience, that there are a whole lotta people out there who don't want to know--and not just sixties types. Sadly, a whole lotta young people--you know? the whatever generation--don't want to know either.

Posted by: batb | 2008-07-04 4:00:23 PM

No need to take offence, Batb. "Sixties type" is a generic moniker used to describe those for whom that decade has not yet ended, at least not politically. Merely living through the 1960s does not make you a "child of the Sixties," if you follow me.

Many young people have trouble facing unpleasant truths; in fact they're tailor-made for it. They're energetic, impressionable, naive, idealistic, and indefatigably self-righteous. They'll believe anything they see in print. Fortunately for the world, most youngsters grow up, but a larger-than-normal share of this demographic never quite managed it.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-04 7:52:31 PM

Re Boomers: "but a larger-than-normal share of this demographic never quite managed it [growing up]" (Shane Matthews).

You're right. Our parents had lived through the Depression and a World War and, I guess, didn't want us to lack for anything. The Boomers are a very spoiled generation. Add to that, unmooring ourselves from marriage, the nuclear family, and faith, and you've got a prescription for narcissistic, me-first thinking.

I'm disappointed in my generation. We haven't been the best role models for young people. Our relativistic, secular humanism--ascendant in the Boomer generation since the '60s--has not served us well and has tended to create in our children (and grandchildren) a default position of secular humanism, the Boomer "religion," along with a great distrust of the Christian Church and the Judeo-Christian values that used to undergird our communal lives together.

It's as though we're drowning and yet refuse to grab onto the lifeline that's been thrown to us.

Posted by: batb | 2008-07-04 9:40:41 PM

"[Morgentaler's] pathological need for attention and female admiration is what's driven him, not his concern for woman's rights."

That comment is true of virtually every Alpha-male in Canada, isn't it? Isn't female admiration the motivation for roughly 70% of what roughly 90% of men do? How else do you explain the success of self-serving feminism?

Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-07-05 12:00:45 PM

First of all, Grant, the percentage of Alpha males in Canada is somewhat lower than 70. As for the success of self-serving feminism, I explain it by the pussification of the Western male. This phenomenon reached its height in the Neurotic Nineties, when the ideal male, in the eyes of women, was a woman with a penis. Fortunately, at least according to the now-famous toilet-seat commercial, it's now "OK to be a guy again."

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-05 3:02:22 PM

"First of all, Grant, the percentage of Alpha males in Canada is somewhat lower than 70."

Indeed, it is. And nothing I said implied or even suggested the contrary. Read it again. (Hint: Lots of non-Alpha-males *also* seek female admiration in most of what they do. Earning a paycheck is mostly about attracting or keeping female attention...)

The "pussification of the Western male," as you put it, is the effect, not the cause. Male lap-dogs who spend their lives in the service of sexist-feminist causes are just seeking female admiration.

Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-07-05 3:34:30 PM

I'd like to comment on the overuse of the terms hippy, sixties type, boomer, and similar "slurs".

First, if you grew up in western Canada, the sixties never happened. Second, if you remember the "fifties types" you'll have a little more empathy for those of us who grew up under their reign (or rein). Those people were real tools. The sixties were a REaction to the hypocracies of those brushcut, button down assholes. And everyone knows that reactions are not always measured very carefully.

Posted by: dp | 2008-07-05 4:51:15 PM

What the **** does that have to do with M**********?

Posted by: Epsilon | 4-Jul-08 11:53:10 AM

I didn't hear anybody on here scream bloody murder when that guy was appointed.

I guess ideology is still king, eh, Epsi, even behind all the vulgarity you lately seem to be favouring as your form of expression.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-05 6:34:07 PM

Actually, Grant, most men could not care less what women think of them. They just want sex. They'll happily bounce the brillo with a woman who despises them. If males are truly seeking female admiration, this is a new phenomenon, and a foolish one, because it's seldom a worthy goal to seek the admiration of anyone. The only exception I can think of is for your own gain.

Since men appear to have LOST a good deal, time to rethink that strategy. I suggest we begin by leaving the toilet seats up, and if that fails to settle matters, weld them open.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-05 6:35:12 PM

Snowrunner wrote: "I guess ideology is still king, eh, Epsi, even behind all the vulgarity you lately seem to be favouring as your form of expression."

This from the guy who thinks Morgantaler is the altruist of the generation. That's something else I've noticed about latte liberal types--they are terrible judges of character. Perhaps it's because they have so little themselves.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-05 6:37:39 PM

By all means, DP, tell us about the tyranny and injustice you and your cohort endured at the hands of the "Fifties Tools." Tell me about the unprecedented prosperity, the quiet suburbs, the affordable homes and cars, the mostly crime- and drug-free schools, the plentiful jobs often available for a minimum of education, and far more young people going to university than any other time in history even so. Hospitals without waiting lists, murderers hanged, the mentally ill safely housed instead of living in the street. Come on, let's hear about just how bad your generation really had it.

Second, don't tell me the Sixties never happened out here. We have a whole town (Nelson) populated with draft-dodgers. More drugs and marijuana here than anywhere. Gulf Islands loaded with retired hippies. Greenpeace. The lightest sentences in the country. The list goes on.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-05 6:46:28 PM