by Jonathon Van Maren

Joining a number of other brave Members of Parliament who dare to speak up for all Canadians, Maurice Vellacot (Saskatoon-Wanuskewin) issued a press release titled “Stop the bullying of Canada’s most vulnerable—the baby.”

“It’s a good thing that people are openly discussing the harm caused by bullying, and considering strategies to address the problem,” Vellacott stated, “In light of this new awareness of bullying, consistency and credibility demands that we tackle the most cruel and common bullying of all—the bullying, and ultimately killing, of babies in the womb.”

Citing fetal pain legislation in the United States and noting that the pre-born child often faces unbearable pain during the abortion procedure, Vellacott noted that, “Despite what we know about the child in the womb and despite what we know about fetal pain, Canada still does not ban the most gruesome abortion procedures in which the limbs and heads are torn and cut from their bodies. Canada’s abortionists are free to bully these unborn babies to death because Canada has no law protecting these helpless victims of this kind of bullying.”

In response to this statement, the funny hats of the “Radical Handmaids” began to quiver with rage, directing their supporters to “unleash the fury” on their Facebook page, due to the fact that “there are just no words.” In spite of that, their supporters managed to find a few, although generally of the profane variety. One stated that the link between schoolyard bullying was “weak at best” (a generous statement considering the speaker), while another ironically suggested that the MP be “checked for some form of dimentia [sic].”

Is the link between the two tenuous? Let me ask you a question: What do you call one human being who targets a much weaker, vulnerable human being? How does society refer to people who take advantage of the fact that smaller, helpless human beings cannot fight back?

It would appear that Mr. Vellacott has already answered these questions for us. It is refreshing to see a politician who recognizes that his mandate to serve applies to all of his constituents—regardless of whether or not they can vote.

Bravo, Mr. Vellacott. The Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform and pro-lifers everywhere stand with you. We’re encouraged by the fact that some people can still hear the silent screams of pre-born Canadians—and we encourage those who do not to listen harder.

by Jonathon Van Maren

Change public opinion, and you’ll change public policy.

This has been the mantra of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform and its affiliates for years. And with the youth activated like it never has been before, that is swiftly becoming a reality.

I realize that it is dangerous to look across the border to our Southern neighbors when making comparisons, because Canadians pride themselves on being, first and foremost, not Americans. But when we see Canadian youth rising up to take on Canada’s perceived abortion consensus, a quick look to the United States tells us just how effective that will be.

While American commentators such as David Frum have urged Republicans to give up on the abortion fight and let it sink into irrelevance, nothing could be further from the truth. Each year seems to bring more pro-life legislation than the last, and pro-“choice” activists are beginning to notice, with one Planned Parenthood director noting worriedly that “the sky is falling on Roe v. Wade.” Last year brought 92 pieces of pro-life legislation across the US.

It was this phenomenon that compelled the head of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) Nancy Keenan to announce last week that she would be leaving her post as president of the organization. The reason? According to the Washington Post, she is “leaving out of concern for the future of the pro-choice movement—and thinks she could be holding it back.”

According to the Post:

“In recent years, Keenan has worried about an 'intensity gap' on abortion rights among millennials, which the group considers to be the generation of Americans born between 1980 and 1991. While most young, anti-abortion voters see abortion as a crucial political issue, NARAL’s own internal research does not find similar passion among abortion-rights supporters. If the pro-choice movement is to successfully defend abortion rights, Keenan contends, it needs more young people in leadership roles, including hers.”

And how has the pro-life movement been changing the abortion consensus? In spite of National Post columnist Chris Selley’s recent sneer at the idea that documentation of the abortion procedure could sway hearts and minds, abortion advocates are admitting that these tactics are working. According to Frances Kissling of Catholics for a Free Choice and Kate Michelman, a former leader of NARAL:

“In recent years, the ant-abortion movement successfully put the nitty-gritty details of abortion procedures on public display, increasing the belief that abortion is serious business and that some societal involvement is appropriate.”

The pro-life movement, they admitted, has “succeeded in shifting public attention from broad support for legal abortion to strong support for restricting access. Twenty years ago, being pro-life was declasse. Now it is a respectable point of view.”

Abortion advocates in Canada may scoff at the idea that the pro-life movement is making gains by citing political unwillingness to discuss abortion, but they know as well as we do that politicians become willing to discuss things very quickly when they feel the pressure from the people. We have no intention of trying to force top-down change. We have every intention of shattering the supposed abortion “consensus” in the minds of everyday Canadians.

These tactics have worked in the United States because people are beginning to recognize that none of the facts line up with an ideology based on killing pre-born children. This isn’t a right versus left debate. This is a human rights debate. Abortion advocates say the sky is falling on Roe v. Wade.

This just in: R v. Morgentaler is next.

by Alanna Gomez

“Perseverance is a great element of success. If you only knock long enough and loud enough at the gate, you are sure to wake up somebody.” Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

It may come as a surprise to many, but it took the United States 40 years to ratify the U.N.’s Genocide Convention, originally adopted in 1948. Countries such as Vietnam, Turkey, Guatemala and Rwanda took responsibility for preventing acts of genocide in the international community before the U.S.A. followed suit. In total, 97 nations had ratified the convention, binding themselves to preventing and punishing genocide, before the U.S. Senate finally passed legislation.

Senator William Proxmire, a Democrat from Wisconsin, decided early on in his career in public office to make ratification of the treaty a priority. He felt the U.S. Senate’s failure to act on the pact was a national shame. The last time the Senate had entertained discussion on the subject was in 1953, before the pact was removed from consideration, through a deal between President Eisenhower and Senator John Bricker. It was incomprehensible to Senator Proxmire that his country, traditionally known as a defender of human rights, had failed so miserably to take steps towards ensuring those rights for all people around the world.

With this mindset, Senator Proxmire made it his mission to compel the Senate to take action on this important human rights convention. He announced to a largely empty Senate chamber that he was embarking on a campaign to ensure the U.S. ratified the Genocide Convention of 1948. As such, on January 11, 1967, he gave the first of 3,211 original speeches on genocide which he would deliver on the Senate floor over the next 21 years.

It was a lengthy and difficult journey, far longer than the Senator at first anticipated. In his mind, genocide was the most outrageous crime he could conceive of; it should hardly take much effort to convince people that the U.S. ought to ratify the convention. While several like-minded politicians did join him in his cause over the years, his critics were far more outspoken. In one of his many speeches, Senator Proxmire noted that the true foes of human rights throughout the world were not the outspoken groups or individuals who opposed him but rather the ignorance and indifference on behalf of the majority of Americans who would otherwise support ratification.

Throughout Proxmire’s five terms in office, the US government had many opportunities to respond to genocidal acts throughout the world and consistently failed to do so, most notably in Cambodia. In 1968, Nigeria sought to suppress the resistance of its Christian Ibo population, through starvation methods. On the Senate floor, Proxmire implored the president to intervene with the following words: “…the need of the starving is obvious. Indeed, it cries to the high heaven for action. And to the degree that the nations of the world allow themselves to be lulled by the claim that the elimination of hundreds of thousands of their fellows is an internal affair, to that degree will our moral courage be bankrupt and our humane concern for other a thin veneer. Our responsibility grows awesomely with the death of each innocent man, woman and child.”

Not everyone would have had the stamina to keep up the fight for so many years, amidst much cold indifference. His whole career in public office was distinguished by the fact that he “believed in the positive power of government to make a more just and humane national community”, always siding on the side of the underdog. A disciplined man, Proxmire ran the 4 miles from home to work in the Capital every day. He didn’t miss a single one of the ten 252 Senate roll calls he was in office for, setting a still unchallenged record. In an article written after his death in 2005, the Senator’s spirit of tenacity is evident. He lost 3 races for Wisconsin governor until he finally won in 1957.  In the final two elections he ran in, he didn’t accept any campaign contributions, only spending money on return postage for unsolicited cheques.

Finally, in 1986, after 19 years, conditions were right for a full Senate vote on the genocide treaty. A vote of 83-11 secured passage of a ratification resolution. It took another two years to implement legislation making genocide a crime under U.S. federal law. After more hard work on the part of Proxmire and his allies, the Senate finally passed the Genocide Convention Implementation Act, named the Proxmire Act. Sadly, Senator Proxmire was not invited to attend the signing of this act.

William Proxmire never championed a cause because it was popular. He did what he believed was right. When a fellow senator saluted him in the Senate after the vote on the genocide treaty, he described Proxmire as a man “who says if something is worth doing, it does not matter to him that it takes 15 years to do it.” The world needs more men and women with this kind of dedication, to fight for human rights around the globe with determination and perseverance. What will our own records show?

Article mentioned:

http://articles.cnn.com/2005-12-19/politics/proxmire.shields_1_genocide-treaty-golden-fleece-awards-transport-plane/2?_s=PM:POLITICS

by Jonathon Van Maren

The cat is out of the bag.

For the last several months, politicians and commentators have been debating about whether or not the abortion debate should be opened (as my colleague Jojo Ruba noted, if you have to debate that a debate is closed, it probably isn’t.) Abortion activists such as Joyce Arthur trumpeted that Conservative MP Gordon Connor’s statement “society has moved on” had dealt a stunning blow to the pro-life movement. Almost everybody who writes for the National Post, conversely, came out in shockingly emphatic columns calling for a re-examination of the gruesome status quo.

The thing is, while abortion movement and the politicians have been calling out in their echo chamber, desperately trying to suggest that we all go home and please be quiet, pro-lifers have been mobilizing. An article in the Toronto Star yesterday highlights the activism groups CCBR has been starting across the country, as well as the ever-increasing influence of the National Campus Life Network and the burgeoning Campaign Life Coalition Youth.

Shockingly, it turns out that increasing amounts of young people aren’t buying the philosophically inept and scientifically bankrupt worldview of an outdated pro-“choice” movement. Even desperate attempts to gain support by donning genitalia costumes, stripping naked in front of displays, and wearing funny hats, hasn’t really resonated beyond giving hard-working pro-life activists comic relief. An angry Facebook group called “Death to the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform” ended up rapidly filling with debates about abortion.

Even Joyce Arthur was forced to admit that there seems to be a demographic shift, telling the Toronto Star that “definitely there is a huge surge in young people being active in the anti-choice movement.” She tries to soften these statements on the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Facebook page, assuring her supporters that our “commitment is probably overblown” and insinuating that once a few more pro-lifers get pregnant, we’ll all slink off to join her in the twilight zone. She also notes that “ignorance plays a huge role, unfortunately.” On that point, challenge accepted. Our organization is fully willing to debate anyone ARCC would like to send our way—and in public!

Canada is starting to notice that while the older generation bickers about whether or not to open the abortion debate, we just did. Maybe parliamentarians don’t want to debate it yet, but we’re debating it with our peers on the streets. We’re bringing our message of universal human rights onto university and college campuses. We’re bringing our message to Canada’s mailboxes. And we’re in this to end it.

I’ve noted before that a movement based on killing off the young can’t expect a lot of young people in their movement. If you abort your children, you have no one to pass on your worldview to—instead you have to try to pass it on to others. We’re not buying it.

And here’s a promise from pro-life youth: You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

by Jonathon Van Maren

As if China needed any more negative press on their barbaric One Child Policy after blind human rights activist Chen Guangcheng’s dramatic escape from house arrest, multiple news outlets are now reporting that South Korean officials have seized thousands of capsules and pills that reportedly contain the powdered flesh of fetuses and babies. The stomach-turning story reports that, since August, over 17,000 of these capsules have been seized from smugglers attempting to bring them in from--you guessed it--China.

First it was details of forced sterilizations, grotesque forced abortions that included women being strapped to chairs while the butchers of Chinese officialdom tore their offspring from their womb, and babies being drowned in buckets. Now reports indicate that cannibalistic capsules were created in factories where the corpses of Chinese babies were chopped like meat, dried out on stoves, and ground into powder. The purpose of these capsules? In a myth akin to the idea that sex with a virgin could cure AIDs, apparently some believe that consuming a dead child can ward off disease. Another report that I desperately hope is inaccurate indicates that they could be used as sexual performance enhancers, grotesquely completing this hellish horror story—have sex, kill the resulting baby, and then use the killed baby to enhance sex.

My greatest fear upon reading these reports was that people would no longer have the capacity to be shocked and repulsed. After all, until a concerted pro-life boycott ended the practice last month, PepsiCo was using aborted fetal cell lines as flavour enhancers. The biotech company utilizing these “flavour programs,” Senomyx, is still used by corporations such as Kraft Foods and Nestle. These facts have been public knowledge for some time, and yet there has been minimal if any public reaction to this abhorrent practice outside of the pro-life community.

It’s easy to bemoan the increasing reports of atrocities against the very young coming out of China. One might rightly note that in the Confucian China of the past, a child falling into a well would be rescued. But in today’s Communist dystopia a child is more likely to get dropped down a well than pulled out. But are we in Canada any better?

The pro-“choice” movement must admit the hideous slippery slope that their worldview has pushed us down. If abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy, for any or no reason, should remain legal, then what is wrong with utilizing the remains of these pre-born innocents? If they aren’t human, then surely we can use their severed limbs for some productive purpose? If not for making sure our junk food tastes good, then perhaps as sexual performance enhancers?

The fact that this is all grotesque should be clear to all. Surely we can still recognize that the remains of human beings should not be used as some sort of cannibalistic pick-a-part. And perhaps, if we can recognize that truth, we can recognize that it is abhorrent to turn living humans into corpses in the first place.

by Stephanie Gray

She became a lawyer to fight only one case.  And after she won it, she returned to her job at a pub.

Betty Anne Waters’ impetus for becoming a lawyer was anything but ordinary. Her brother had attempted suicide, and in an effort to save him from self-inflicted death, the duo made a deal: “If I promise you I’ll go back to school,” Betty Anne recalled negotiating, “Will you promise me you’ll stay alive?”

And he did—long enough for Betty to become the lawyer who would free her brother from an 18-year-long unjust jail sentence for a crime he did not commit.

In 1983, an innocent woman in Massachusetts was murdered, and in a miscarriage of justice, an innocent man, Kenny Waters, was falsely convicted of that murder.  He was sentenced to life in prison without parole, and spent almost the next two decades behind bars.

Kenny and Betty Anne’s lives had been far from easy: they grew up in a chaotic and troubled home.  Their seven siblings came from multiple fathers and the presence of police was common growing up.  Betty Anne was a high school drop-out, and when she started on the long track for law school, she was a mother (soon-to-be single mother) of two young boys. 

Becoming a lawyer is a significant accomplishment in and of itself, but throw in the challenging factors of Betty Anne’s life, and her story is nothing short of inspiring.  She shows that the circumstances of our past do not have to determine the state of our future.  She shows that persistence pays off.  Most of all, she shows that love never fails.

“If you focus,” Betty Anne once said, “put one foot in front of the other, keep your eye on the end result, I think you can always get there, no matter what it is; you know, things happen along the way, you just go over the hurdle and keep on going.”

Hurdle after hurdle, Betty Anne persistently jumped over each one. And Kenny, helpless behind bars, had to simply wait.

Slowly but surely, the milestones came: graduation from college, graduation from law school, discovery of old evidence still containing DNA, and the use of new DNA-testing technology. And so it was to be: Betty Anne’s conviction that her brother was unjustly convicted could be—would be—proven true.

Kenny Waters entered jail at the age of 29.  And thanks to years of sacrifice and self-surrender by his sister, in March 2001, at the age of 47, he was a free man.

In a heartbreaking twist, six months after his release, Kenny died when he slipped and fell on his head while walking from dinner with his mother.  But Betty Anne noted that “Kenny had the best six months of his life.”  For six months he experienced the world brand new—from fascination with cell phones and other new technology to awe at the largeness of Home Depot.  Kenny lived in bondage.  But he died in freedom.   As he slipped away in the hospital, his ever-faithful sister Betty Anne was by his side.  Kenny died knowing he was loved.

In 2010, Hollywood brought the siblings’ story to life in the film “Conviction.” Actress Hilary Swank, who played Betty Anne, said, “I was amazed that someone could be so selfless and, really, give her entire life to someone else.  And her love for them—I was absolutely amazed, blown away.  If you sat here with Betty Anne she would say ‘Well, I just did what everyone else would do.’”

Let’s hope so, Betty Anne.  Let’s hope so.

by Jonathon Van Maren

Pro-life social media feeds and media everywhere are lighting up with the dramatic escape story of Chen Guangcheng, a blind Chinese human rights activist who has been a loud and consistent critic of China’s brutal and bloody One Child Policy, which includes forced abortions and forced sterilizations.

The situation at this point seems rather confusing. Chen, who has been under stringent house arrest with his family for several years after a four year stint in jail for defying China’s Communist government, apparently escaped on the night of April 22, scaling a wall in spite of blindness and fleeing with the help of fellow human rights activists hundreds of miles to the US embassy in Beijing. He was soon back in Chinese custody, with the Americans saying he left of his own volition and Chen saying he left because the Chinese officials were threatening the lives of his family. American officials are faced with a very slippery dilemma.

I would propose that this situation is tricky for the Obama Administration for more reasons than the oft-cited economic attachment to China. Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion president ever to hold office in the United States, so a human rights activist dealing with the issue of abortion is a sticky one to say the least. Chinese babies are one thing—but what if the discussion happened to stumble upon the pile of pre-born American corpses the Obama Administration so desperately wants to ignore?

Let me provide an illustration. In a phenomenal editorial yesterday, National Post editor Jonathan Kay published several anecdotes of the abortion culture in China, gut-wrenching in their descriptiveness:

“'Officials held her on the bed and gave her a poisonous shot, despite that her due day was soon,' according to a prepared statement from Chinese lawyer Jiang Tianyong that was presented to a U.S. Congressional hearing in 2009. 'The needle went through her belly to the nine-mouth old fetus. Li said, ‘At first, I could feel my child was kicking; after a while it stopped.’ Ten hours later, Li gave birth to a dead baby. The official threw the dead baby into a bucket.'”

Now consider this anecdote:

“One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was about 22 weeks old, weighed about a half a pound, and was about 10 inches long, about the size of my hand. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy that he had trying to breathe. Toward the end of his life he was so quiet that I couldn't tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his little heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, tied his hands together with a string, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our other dead patients go.”

That story comes from Jill Stanek’s congressional testimony on behalf of the Born Alive Infant’s Act, which was designed to protect children who survived an abortion and entitle them to medical care. Guess who voted against this bill?

You’re probably already with me: President Barack Obama.

China is not the only place where barbaric things happen with a repulsive regularity. China is simply the place where they are happening by state-enforced physical coercion (although North America has its fair share of forced abortions.) Chen Guangcheng is a hero, yes. But for the Obama Administration to recognize his heroism, they might just have to recognize the fact that in the stories of gruesome forced abortions, there were two victims. Is a dead baby tossed in a bucket any more tragic than a Down Syndrome child abandoned to die in a medical waste room? Both are tragic. And both are crimes against humanity.

The Obama Administration, however, does not consider the some of the victims Chen seeks to defend to be worthy of protection. Rather, the Obama Administration has its own skeletons in the closet it wants to ignore. And I fervently hope that Chen Guangcheng does not become one of them.

by Jonathon Van Maren

During last week’s parliamentary debate about MP Stephen Woodworth’s proposed Motion 13, Liberal MP Hedy Fry inadvertently brought up a point that reveals our national obliviousness to irony as well as a certain schizophrenia in regards to how we value human life.

After noting that Stephen Harper had promised not to touch the issues of abortion and the death penalty, she stated, "He broke that promise when his party refused to seek clemency for Ronald Allen Smith, a Canadian on death row in the United States. By refusing to seek clemency for Mr. Smith, the Conservative Party reversed the long-standing practice of seeking clemency for Canadians on death row abroad. The Prime Minister and his government were also in contravention of the United Nations convention to abolish the death penalty, to which Canada is a signatory."

It is interesting that Hedy Fry chose to bring up the death penalty during a debate that ended up being about abortion and the value of human life. Ms. Fry and the vast majority of the Canadian left are firmly opposed to the death penalty based on the argument that it is cruel and unusual punishment. However, these same politicians reacted with outrage to the mere suggestion that medical science should be consulted to inform us on whether or not we were tragically ignoring the rights of the youngest members of our society.

The point I’m making here does not concern the death penalty. There is much disagreement on capital punishment within the pro-life community, ranging from total disagreement to ambivalence. However, surely we can all agree on one thing: If it’s wrong to kill guilty human beings, shouldn’t it be even more obviously wrong to kill innocent human beings?

In fact, the UN-adopted International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights even states that the death penalty cannot be carried out on a pregnant woman. Why? Because there is an implicit recognition that we are dealing with two human beings, and that the innocent one should not suffer for the crimes of the guilty.

If the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, consider this: Some abortionists have suggested delivering anaesthetic to the pre-born child before abortions so the child will not go through excruciating pain. “Fetal pain” legislation has passed in some jurisdictions in the United States due to the recognition that abortion causes enormous pain to the victim. Pro-“choice” activists have for the most part rejected even these measures.

To sum up: If you are a murderer convicted of multiple killings, such as Ronald Smith, you will incur an enormous amount of sympathy from the Canadian left in general. However, if you are pre-born child, regardless of which stage of development you are in or how much pain you will experience at the hands of the abortionist, the mere suggestion that the medical science be examined is met with righteous indignation.

This, Ms. Fry, is not compassion. This is a blatant inconsistency of the most dangerous sort. If we as a nation have agreed that capital punishment should be dispensed with based on the premise that human life is valuable, then it stands to reason that those most innocent members of our nation’s population, those in the womb, are entitled to the same protection. Then again, I suppose it’s easy to ignore victims incapable of voting.

As Mother's Day is approaching, we are reminded of how important pro-life work is: striving to make sure women are mothers of living children, not dead ones.  As CCBR works tirelessly to spare pre-born children, and women, from the death, and woundedness, that abortion brings, would you consider supporting us through a Mother's Day gift fundraising program?  Here are the details:

One of our supporters sells Silpada Jewelry and if you purchase a product from her in CCBR's name, 20% of all jewellery purchases will be donated to CCBR!

Purchase for yourself, or someone special (like your Mom for Mother's Day!) gorgeous handcrafted .925 Sterling Silver Jewellery (Silpada jewellery is .925 sterling silver and semi-precious stone fine jewellery--no nickel or lead.  And they have a 60 day refund or exchange policy, plus they offer a life-time purchase warranty on all pieces).

All orders will be delivered Canada Post to the purchasers address.

So here are the easy ways you can help CCBR benefit from these jewellery sales:

1. FORWARD THIS FUND RAISER OFFER TO FAMILY AND FRIENDS, inviting them to participate in this Fund Raiser!

2. Shop On-Line With Independent SILPADA Designs Representative JOYCE

MCLEOD:

a) On line through the Shop Now Link- search for/enter Hostess:

CCBR

b) By phone (905) 847-4661 with JOYCE MCLEOD

c) By email at mcleodj@cogeco.ca with JOYCE MCLEOD

If you would like to receive a catalogue or make an appointment to view the jewellery please contact JOYCE directly.

Of course, if you don't wish to buy jewelry you can still donate to CCBR--as we prepare for our summer program and as our staff increases from 11 to 18, we would be most grateful for your financial support.  But if you're looking to buy jewellery and make such a gift for yourself or others, then please consider purchasing Silpada jewellery through Joyce.  This way, you're saving lives!

Thank you for supporting CCBR!

This week Jonathon and Stephanie discuss the debate in the House of Commons surrounding Motion 312, Stephen Woodworth's motion to discuss and debate when humans become humans.

by Jonathon Van Maren

“The compact with which exists between the North and the South is a covenant with death and an agreement with hell.”

These words of abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison are a summation of his entire life: Unfettered rage against the injustice of slavery. He began writing publicly at the age of fourteen while doing an apprenticeship for the Newburyport Herald of Springfield, Massachusetts in 1819. Shortly thereafter, he began his own newspaper with a partner, the Free Press, also writing for the National Philanthropist and the Genius of Universal Emancipation before starting his own anti-slavery newspaper, The Liberator, in 1831.

Garrison was quite willing to place himself at risk by his writing. While writing for the Genius of Universal Emancipation in Baltimore, he was brought to court by a slave trader after he reported on the barbaric practices of the inter-state slave trade in his famous “Black List” column. Garrison landed in jail for seven weeks as a result. When he was bailed out by a fellow abolitionist, he headed to New England to found The Liberator.

In the very first issue of The Liberator he wrote: “I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; – but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest – I will not equivocate – I will not excuse – I will not retreat a single inch – AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead.”

A powerful believer in the ability to enact social reform by nonviolent and passive resistance, Garrison did more than write. He founded the New England Anti-Slavery Society, and co-founded the American Anti-Slavery Society. His views led him to become the victim of violence more than once, at one point having to be rescued by the police from a lynch mob determined to hang him.

When the American Civil War resulted in the Emancipation Proclamation that ended slavery, William Llloyd Garrison declared the goals of the anti-slavery movement accomplished: "My vocation, as an Abolitionist, thank God, has ended." He worked to bring about women’s suffrage and other notable causes, before passing away in 1879.

His words should encourage us still: “The success of any great moral enterprise does not depend upon numbers.” Indeed, it depends upon justice and truth. Truly Garrison`s example should inspire us all in our fight for all human beings to be recognized and protected as such.

by Jonathon Van Maren

Question: Would the media call a rally with only fifty people in attendance “huge”? Would it gain the attention of the National Post, the Globe and Mail, and many other Canadian media outlets?

Answer: If it’s a group called “The Radical Handmaids” wearing funky crimson red costumes and it’s the only physical opposition to Motion 312, then yes!

But seriously. Here’s a picture of the abortion “rally” on Parliament Hill:

Don’t see it? It’s what appears to be a small picnic on the right. Either that or a protest by the Parliament Hill Cleaning Association. Or maybe the Liberal Party Caucus asserting their relevance.

Now, I realize that the Canadian public is not fully ready for the abortion legislation that the pro-life movement desires. We have much work to do yet. But what the media doesn’t realize is that the Canadian public does not line up with the values of abortion “crowd” either. When the three-headed Cereberus, guardian of the gates of the Hades, almost outnumbers your “Open Season on Babies” protest in a quick head count, you don’t have a very active fan base. And that’s in spite of the fact that you’ve tried to combine the fun costumes of Halloween with the cheery warmth of a bra-burning.

Now, just for a fun comparison, let's take a look at how many people showed up to the March for Life last year:

That’s right. Around fifteen thousand, the vast majority of them young and an increasing number of them dedicated to actually ending abortion in Canada. While Canada’s ever-shrinking pro-choice crowd might be the status quo for now due to the fact that they only have to play defence while the media covers for them, they are increasingly a stagnant pond with a few bullfrogs letting out the occasional televised relativistic ribbit. Once the cameras leave, they haven’t got much going on anymore. Important lesson: If you want a youth movement, don't champion a movement based on killing off the youth.

And I must say that when I realize that our biological arguments are being combated only with their costumes and “knitted wombs,” it’s reassuring. Because it’s only a matter of time before the Canadian public realizes that truth is more impressive than creative knitting.

by Jonathon Van Maren

The ever increasing sufferings of our canine friends have been quite prominent in the news cycle of late, from Mitt Romney’s unorthodox methods of transporting them to President Obama’s unorthodox history of eating them. Not to be left out, today Canada has its own big dog story: The CBC breathlessly informs us that in Toronto, a Shetland sheepdog was stabbed. (Gasp.)

Now, I like dogs. We always had dogs around our place when I was growing up. I understand how people have a close affinity with “a man’s best friend” to the point where it can be extremely painful to lose such a pet, although I must admit I've never had one harpooned. But, seriously? With everything going on across Canada and the world, this is worthy enough to make it onto the national news?

Apparently this clearly “first world problem” is of such significance that yes, it does merit a prominent spot on the news cycle. After all, the idea of a 68 year-old man spearing a dog with a broomstick does seem rather unique--anyone else thinking Clint Eastwood? But this is what gets us outraged?

Indeed. Here are a few of the over two hundred comments from the mourning public:

“If you don't believe in harsh penalties for cruelty to animals or wrongfully causing the death of an animal -- then you don't believe in law and order.”

“I’d honestly support the death penalty in cases of animal abuse, I’m sick of the arrogance of humanity.”

“So he was walking in public with a homemade spear and he, allegedly, brutally attacked and killed an animal. He's not being held - not for a psych evaluation - not to protect public safety. Will there be a child next?”

I could point out here that if the man had chosen to spear a child, the government wouldn’t have arrested him for it. As long as he picked the right age range, they would have subsidized it and subcontracted the job out to a “clinic” worker.

I could point out that what I found exceptionally depressing about the hundreds of comments from readers is that with the exception of a few beacons of reason, people showed far more sympathy for a collie than they do for human tragedy. For example, this collie catastrophe more than doubled the number of comments received by the story of an explosion at a sawmill in Prince George, which resulted in the death of one worker and injured dozens more.

But really, I just think we should save our outrage quota for things that matter. The fact that we have the luxury of getting angry over the death of someone else’s pet is one that few societies have ever become pampered enough to attain. Hey, I’m with you. Nobody thinks it's cool to stab Lassie. There should even be ramifications for it. But when it's the screams of children versus the barking of dogs, I just can’t seem to shake this annoying sense of perspective.

by Father Matthew Wertin

Some time ago, I attended a pro-life activism training day led by Ruth (Lobo) Shaw of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, and at the end of the day she led us in a “Choice” Chain.  I was surprised by this at first, and a little nervous about participating.  For all the pro-life activism I have been involved with over the years, I have never used graphic images.  Ruth trained us very well, especially with a hands-on session in acting out the various scenarios we would most likely encounter on the streets.  In fact, when we were out on the streets, things happened exactly as she explained they would, and what she taught us really prepared us and truly paid off. 

People have a very powerful reaction to the images, and many made this reaction vocal. Unfortunately many that day did not want to have a civil conversation about the real issues, as they simply wanted to tell us how offensive we were, how wrong we were, and how we should not be doing what we were doing.  We did have some support, as well as some people walking by without comment, but I was shocked by all the negative reactions we did encounter.  The truth about abortion is not an easy thing to deal with, but hiding it does nothing but help the horror continue.  As the famous Catholic author Flannery O’Connor said, “The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it emotionally.”  I admire CCBR and their willingness to engage the public with the truth about abortion, ever ready to explain, with loving concern, what it is, what it does, and why it is never okay, in any situation, but that there are positive alternatives. 

Furthermore, CCBR always eagerly and readily supports those who are employing other means to help end abortion (E.g. 40 Days for Life, etc.), they keep inviting and offering others to be open to what they have to offer, and I feel very much loved and supported by them.  I am truly grateful for being given this experience, as it has opened my eyes a little more, strengthened my faith, and given me new energy to fight the good fight in working to abolish abortion.  I hope that many of my dear brother priests, many of whom are scared, busy, not aware of what is at stake, and who possibly have never suffered in life or had their hearts broken by the truth of abortion, would soon join me and never look back.

Father Matthew Wertin

Priest of the Diocese of Pueblo, Colorado (USA)

Student of Canon Law at SPU – Ottawa, ON

100% Pro-Life

by Jonathon Van Maren

In the history of the 20^th Century, there are few events quite as infamous as the 1937 Rape of Nanking. Iris Chang’s 1997 book The Rape of the Nanking exposed and immortalized the horrific events that few Westerners had even heard of, writing a story that seemed to be relentless in its pain and despair. The Rape of Nanking seems to be a story without hope, without redemption, and without any glimmer of selfless humanity. However, there were those who fought to stop the evil. One of them was a woman named Minnie Vautrin.

Minnie was a missionary who first travelled to China to work as an educator in 1912. She soon became the president of Ginling College in Nanking, staying there even when the majority of faculty fled the approaching Japanese invasion. She did not consider herself to be doing anything heroic, but rather thought of her actions like many educators do. A diary entry from April 14, 1940 reveals how she felt: “I’m about at the end of my energy. Can no longer forge ahead and make plans for the work, but on every hand there seems to be obstacles of some kind. I wish I could go on furlough at once, but who will do the thinking for the Exp. Course?” She was dedicated to the task of educating, and when the Japanese came into Nanking, she did not leave, defying the orders of the American embassy.

The Rape of Nanking began in December of 1937 when the Japanese entered the city, and soon became an orgy of raping, looting, murder, torture, and sadism. Actions too terrible to warrant description were perpetrated on women of all ages, and the Yangtze River ran red with blood for days on end as the Japanese soldiers beheaded thousands of unarmed Chinese soldiers. And in the midst of all this, Minnie Vautrin tried with all her might to protect whomever she could.

Her diary entry from December 16, 1937 describes the carnage: “There probably is no crime that has not been committed in this city today. Thirty girls were taken from the language school last night, and today I have heard scores of heartbreaking stories of girls who were taken from their homes…Tonight a truck passed in which there were eight or ten girls, and as it passed they called out ‘Ging ming! Ging ming!’—save our lives…Oh, God, control the cruel beastliness of the soldiers in Nanking.”

According to a prominent book written on Vautrin: “When the Japanese soldiers ordered Vautrin to leave the campus, she replied: ‘This is my home. I cannot leave.’ Facing down the blood-stained bayonets constantly waved in her face, Vautrin shielded the desperate Chinese who sought asylum behind the gates of the college. Vautrin exhausted herself defying the Japanese army and caring for the refugees after the siege ended in March 1938. She even helped the women locate husbands and sons who had been taken away by the Japanese soldiers. She taught destitute widows the skills required to make a meager living and provided the best education her limited sources would allow to the children in desecrated Nanking.”

When Japanese soldiers tried to ransack the university, Minnie refused to let them enter. When soldiers tried to abduct refugees under her care, she bravely stood in between them. And when the Japanese finally completed their hellish masterpiece with over three hundred thousand people butchered, Minnie started the hard work of caring for the city's wounded.

Minnie Vautrin is credited with saving up to ten thousand Chinese women and children at the risk of her own life. She saw her responsibility to those around her, and answered that call unswervingly. Her actions during one of the century’s greatest crimes should be an inspiration to all of us who desire to make a difference in the lives of those who suffer around us.