True to form

Want media coverage for your political pet peeve? Put out a news release claiming to represent a million Canadians. Make sure it's on a hot topic and give it the air of having some sort of institutional imprint. There's a good chance that harried journalists and deskers (that's mediaspeak for editors) will cover your cause without looking too deeply into exactly whom you purport to represent.

I'm talking here about last week's push by anti-choicers -- those who would deny women their reproductive rights and control over their bodies and destinies --  to use last month's appointment of Dr. Henry Morgentaler to the Order of Canada as a way to rearrange the Supreme Court of Canada. Their position is that Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, in her capacity as chair of the Order of Canada committee, acted improperly when the decision to award Morgentaler was made. All the major newspapers fell into line, including the Star.

A coalition of 42 Christian and right-to-life organizations claiming to represent "one million plus" Canadians sent a letter to the Canadian Judicial Council on Aug. 12, urging McLachlin be removed from office and complaining her performance as committee chair raises broader concerns about public trust in the impartiality of the judiciary.

Morgentaler, 85, an abortion rights crusader whose legal battles led to the Supreme Court of Canada striking down Criminal Code prohibitions on abortion 20 years ago, was named a member of the Order of Canada on July 1.

The groups, which include the Catholic Diocese of Calgary, pro-life physicians and an organization called Lutherans for Life, allege McLachlin showed "wanton disregard" for the Order of Canada's constitution and traditions as head of the committee that advised Governor General Michaëlle Jean on Morgentaler's suitability for the honour.

Sadly, the comments sections of these online stories are fora for anybody to post nonsense, including the lie that ''a major poll'' shows that a majority of Canadians are against Morgentaler's appointment, when the opposite is true.

Anyway, the progressive pro-choice blogosphere has been doing a terrific job of exposing the members of the ''coalition of 42 Christian and right-to-life organizations.'' Some of them don't even have phone numbers. Or members.

As Bouquets of Gray posts:

Forty-two groups may seem impressive. But as is often the case with these people, there is less here than is claimed. You can see the list and complaint in a pdf here, or over at Benediction, and if you look you'll find "David Murrell, Phd, UNB, Economics" -- who is clearly not a group, but an individual.

And some of those listed aren't groups, but private businesses. Consider these three:

    * A.J. Slinger Service
    * Can Am Fabricating and Welding
    * Can American Stone Spreader

That's not all. If you click on the links you'll see that these three businesses share the same address: 156 Berryman Ave, St. Catharines.  Presumably this is one pro-life business owner.

And so it goes.

But this ''coalition'' is not done yet, no, no, no. Now it's steamed that the chief justice dared to speak out in her own defence, and clarify and correct the record on her role in Morgentaler's appointment. I added the boldface and link:

CALGARY, Aug. 17 /CNW/ - Canada Family Action Coalition felt obligated to
the more than one million Canadians who joined in the complaint to the
Canadian Judicial Council to respond to the comments made on Saturday by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.
   

"In her response about the complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council,
Justice McLachlin addressed an issue that was not even alleged in the
complaint. And she failed to provide any answers to the significant
allegations about violations to the constitution of the Order of Canada," said
Brian Rushfeldt, Executive Director, Canada Family Action Coalition. "Judge
McLachlin is deflecting the issue. Judge Scott must now assess the deflection
of McLachlin's response as well as the substance of the complaint. This is
exactly why we MUST have a full investigation of the McLachlin's conduct and
the deliberations of the Advisory Council. Canadians deserve honesty and
openness."

Indeed they do.

One More Thing: This was front page news in the National Post -- naturally -- on Saturday. 

Ontario physicians could be stripped of their right to exercise religious or moral conscience if a new set of guidelines is accepted by their regulating body next month, critics say.

Doctors across Canada are now allowed to opt out of such things as prescribing birth control or morning-after pills or doing abortions when it goes against their conscience. Physicians are also allowed to refuse to do referrals in such cases.

But a new draft proposal from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario could change that for doctors in the province.

"I'm really concerned with the new principle that the college is promulgating, and that is that doctors do not have the right to be guided in the conduct of the practice by their conscience," said Joseph Ben-Ami, president of the Centre for Policy Studies, an Ottawa-based think-tank. "That's a sweeping broad principle to establish -- and once you've established it the field is wide open for further changes."

Watch for this one to break wide open, as it has in the United States where pharmacists can refuse to dispense contraception. Bet the anti-choicers jump all over it on religious and moral grounds.

Sorry people but if I wanted religion, I'd go to church not the drugstore. And if I wanted moralizing, I'd pay more attention to the Pope and not my doctor.

Comments

[fern hill]

Yee-haw! Atta girl, Antonia.

They sure make a lot of noise for a tiny gang of nutbars. They are NOT representative of Canadians -- as properly conducted polls demonstrate repeatedly -- so they lie and cheat to inflate themselves.

It's grand that you're helping expose them. Thank you.

[sooey]

Speaking of "doctors", I hadn't thought to question it myself, nor has the Globe & Mail apparently, but some bloggers are wondering just what kind of "doctor" Stephen Harper's BFF, Charles McVety, pictured here, is:

http://bouquetsofgray.blogspot.com/2008/08/only-one-front-per-customer-please-lets.html

[psa]

Huzzah Antonia, at least someone in the media isn't hoodwinked by the snake oil merchandizing of McVety and his damp trousered hysterics.

[pseudz]

Brava, Antonia,

It's good to see that you're charitable enough to try to spank some truthiness back into those pro-life zealots. People are not born liars - they succumb to temptation.

I wonder whether there'll be more of these sorts of shenanigans as Canada and the USA move closer to their respective national elections.

[Dr. Frink]

@sooey - "some bloggers are wondering just what kind of "doctor" Stephen Harper's BFF, Charles McVety... is"

He is actually a 'Docter' just as I and my colleague Dr. Prole are 'Docters'

http://www.acreativerevolution.ca/node/1062

[deBeauxOs]

Besides those 100 or so people who somehow multiplied themselves into "the more than one million Canadians who joined in the complaint" claimed (belonging or simply being the sole member of those 42 'groups') McVety no doubt includes all the 'pre-born' whose interests he represents, as well as the 'post-dead' too.

http://www.breadnroses.ca/birthpangs/2008/07/support-from-the-post-dead/

[CC]

Hi, Zerb, sweetie. Here you go. The fun starts about 1:30 in. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-ntPh0ao7I

[msg]

Please make this big news in the media at large, especially in Quebec french news, as well as the questionable credentials of Charles McVety.

[mozo]

I speak on behalf of more than 31 million Canadians who are not ideologically impaired. I denounce Chuck McVety and am considering a human rights tribunal complaint against his, and his fellow travellers', attempts to minimize my life choices.

[Punchbuggy]

Re: National Post

I despise physicians who refuse care on the basis of their moral conscience- but I disagree with the tactic being taken now by the College. To deny physicians and pharmacists the right to say no is no different from denying a woman the right to choose.

These people shouldn't have been allowed to become doctors in the first place, but now that they are, pro-choicers would be just like them to mandate them to provide abortions and birth control when asked.

The key is to prevent people who can't put their patients' rights and health before their own from entering the profession in the first place. And yes, that's exactly what it sounds like: just as we prevent people who lack the necessary intelligence from becoming doctors, we should prevent people who lack the necessary compassion and perspective from becoming doctors. Judge them on the basis of their so-called morality, find them lacking, and deny them the ability to judge others according to theirs.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

One related issue which should be aired, of which the item under discussion provides an example, is the incredible arrogance displayed by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin on an ongoing basis, most egregiously during an address in New Zealand, where she came close to declaring herself God.

Sterling Lyon, Peter Lougheed, and the rest knew what they were doing when they insisted on the Notwithstanding Clause in the Charter. If only the Federal Government would use it sometimes. A few judicious (pun intended) applications would get the Court to back off ...

Even the US Constitution has an equivalent to the notwithstanding clause (I forget exactly where), as the late, great Sam Francis, and the not-so-great-but-still-very -much-in-business Pat Buchanan have pointed out.

[Antonia]

Several readers have suggested having a look at this superb smackdown of the ''million'' Canadians, the 42 ''groups,'' and their claims.
http://www.thecourt.ca/2008/08/19/the-complaints-against-chief-justice-mclachlin-are-less-than-impressive

[sooey]

I believe you mean "regurgitated", The Stygian. And Chief Justice McLachlin IS God, so really, when you stop and think about it, she's actually quite modest.

[johnnykap]

Zerbilicious, you have finally confirmed what I suspected all along: you are an atheist. What do I base that on? "Sorry people but if I wanted religion, I'd go to church" IF you wanted religion. IF. Obviously, you don't want religion. Ergo, by logical extension, you are an atheist.

Now, if I can only ascertain how many lovers you have had, my mission will be complete. Or as my hero, W,would say: Mission Accomplished.

[Antonia]

''Obviously, you don't want religion. Ergo, by logical extension, you are an atheist.''

Just because one doesn't want religion or a church does not make a person an atheist. Faith is not religion. Worship is not belief. God is not found in old white men in gilded robes and silly hats spouting ancient mumbo jumbo and misogynist dogma.

Your logic is faulty.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

Sooey, sweetie, I may well have actually meant "regurgitated". A lot of "regurgitated" stuff is self-evident,though, that's why lazy people whose hearts are in the right place do it. Would you mind awfully (I'm being quite serious) rephrasing my wording with "regurgitated" inserted at the appropriate place?

And if the Chief Justice is God, are you claiming to be her Prophet?

[johnnykap]

Zer-baloney: How could worship not be belief? Who worships something without believing that that something exists? That simply flies in the face of common sense.

No, you're an atheist all right. That's something we have in common...something we can build on for the future.

It took a while, but I finally got my answer.

That wasn't so painful, was it?

[JJ]

Great post Antonia! thank you!!!

The "42 groups" continue to fall like dominos. The list is almost in half now.

W00t!

[fohn]

Johnnykap you talk a lot and miraculously you manage to say nothing.

[licketysplit]

Thank you AZ for hammering away at this important topic. I totally agree with you. It seems to be that in typical fashion, it is men whom are demanding rights over womens' reproductive organs.
These pro-lifers do not represent me. I have not given up my right to vote.
I often wonder: once those placard-carrying protesters are successful in stopping a woman from obtaining an abortion, are they there at all to assist with the financial and emotional burden of raising the child? I think not. All they care about is that they get their way. They don't care about the consequences of their actions.
Charles McVety: do you help anyone whom you've talked out of an abortion? and I don't mean opening up your bible and praying. I mean, opening your wallet - til that child is independent and can take care of themselves.

[licketysplit]

to johnnykap: just because there are those of us out there that DON'T go to church does not make us athiests.
Nor are we immoral.
I donot consider myself morally bankrupt. I just question people who believe in a God who seems to be schizophrenic. Just read the OT and you will find He is demanding whole tribes be put to death for no apparent reason. And he picks his favorites.
And the funny thing is, those of you whom are religious, can't even read the bible properly.

[The Stygian and His Shemitish Dogs]

licketysplit:

“I often wonder: once those smug pinko twits are successful in stopping immigration authorities from conducting legal deportations of criminals and terrorists, are they there at all to assist with the financial, emotional, and cultural burden of welcoming the criminal and terrorist immigrants to their own neighbourhoods? I think not. All they care about is feeling smug. They don't care about the consequences of their actions.”

“I also wonder: once those smug pinko twits are successful in flooding the workplace with marginally-qualified employment equity hirings, are they there at all to give up their own comfortable jobs as exemplary gestures? I think not. All they care about is feeling smug. They don't care about the consequences of their actions.”

“And in today’s context I really can’t stop wondering: once those smug rich pinko twits are successful in bringing the economy to a grinding halt with their “green shift” nonsense, are they there at all to assist those of us who are less well off with lifts in their limos and private jets? I think not. All they care about is feeling smug. They don't care about the consequences of their actions.”

And I haven't touched welfare payments yet.

[The Stygian and His Shemitish Dogs]

M'Bozo,

"I speak on behalf of more than 31 million Canadians who are not ideologically impaired."

If you have anything to do with a "Human Rights" Tribunal apart from scorn, satire, contempt,and embarassment for Canada, you're far more ideologically impaired than Charles McVety.

cf. the latest

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=743273&p=1

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2008/08/do-political-scientists-believe-in-free.html

[johnnykap]

Zerbacious: I wrote a blog post directed specifically to you to give you an update on my research into your religious beliefs and the number of lovers you have had in your life. Two of your corresponders have intervened in our conversation by attacking me personally.

One of them, fohn, even used supernatural events (a miracle) in an attempt to undermine my (and by extension, your) lack of belief in supernatural events.

The other poster, licketysplit, states that he/she is not an atheist and then goes on to launch a diatribe against the very God he/she supposedly believes in. I would strongly urge licketysplit to either get with god's program or conclude that He does not exist. He/she cannot have it both ways.

I shall not allow your blog to denigrate into nothing but back-and-forths on the subject of religion and how many lovers you have had.*

*my current estimate is 6