Weekly News

1. Alberta's Terrorist Structure Smacked Down By Ezra Levant – January 13, 2008

Ezra Levant is withering in his contempt for the fascist thought-crime inquisition he is facing for publishing the Muslim cartoons that led to riots in other parts of the world in the now defunct Western Standard magazine.

Mr. Levant is incredibly articulate and he gave up absolutely no ground. Visit his website for continued updates on this case. You can currently read his opening statement and see 4 video clips of his first inquisition on his site. You can also see the Muslim cartoons again on his website.

(When human rights commissions prosecute people for exercising their freedom of speech, they send an anti-freedom chill through Canada. In other words, they strike terror into Canadians for speaking freely. Strike terror! Hence the terroristic nature of "human rights" commissions and tribunals.)

This material is going to "eat-up" the Internet around the free world in the days and weeks ahead - and it certainly won't do any harm to Mr. Levant's personal reputation as a conservative and a freedom fighter - and rightly so. Controversial conservative American commentator Michelle Malkin is already posting the material on her website.

It will be worthwhile to keep an eye on the comments these and other websites get as they post the developments on this case. With a spokesman and leader like Mr. Levant, freedom-loving Canadians will hopefully rise up and crush all unrepentant freedom-haters.

I suspect - I hope - that with people like Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn and the Maclean's leadership, Canada's human anti-rights commissions have finally met their match. Have Canada's Gestapo overplayed their hand? Hopefully they have this time...

A new survey by Angus Reid Strategies suggests most Canadians would support the efforts of an Orthodox Jewish family in Winnipeg to override a doctor’s desire to take 84-year-old Samuel Golubchuk off life support.

The poll found that just over two-thirds of those surveyed (68 per cent) felt that it should be up to a family member to decide whether to remove a patient in a vegetative state from life support. Only 15 per cent said that decision should be made by a doctor, and just two per cent said it should be left up to a judge to decide.

As the Globe and Mail reported, Golubchuk’s family went to court last week to ask for an extension of a temporary injunction to keep him on life support at a Winnipeg hospital. Golubchuk had been placed on life support on November 3. Doctors now want to take him off it so he can die. They believe that, barring a miracle, he will never recover. They cite his limited brain function, his inability to walk or eat and that he needs a respirator to help him breathe.

Golubchuk’s children contend that taking their father off life support would be a sin. In a court affidavit, Rabbi Y. Charytan, who works for Jewish Child and Family Services, said Orthodox Jews believe that “life must be extended as long as possible and we are not allowed to hasten death,” CBC News reported.

“If there is brain activity, there is life. That is our position,” the family’s lawyer, Neil Kravetsky, told the Winnipeg Sun. Kravetsky also argues that if doctors were to remove Golubchuk’s ventilator and feeding tube, they would be committing a criminal offence.

“My reading of the law is that without consent . . . they can’t do it. I submit that is assault and battery.” he said.

“Who amongst us would want to be starved and dehydrated to death?” asked the League for Life in Manitoba in a letter to the hospital’s chief medical officer, criticizing the medical staff for wanting to remove Golubchuk from life-support, the Winnipeg Free Press reported.

But Bill Olson, a lawyer representing one of Golubchuk’s physicians, countered that the issue is not hastening death but rather the futility of keeping him alive.

“No doctor I know has ever tried to play God. They take very seriously their ethical obligation to only afford that which they honestly believe would be appropriate, beneficial care to the patient,” Olson told CBC News.

“And in this case, they concluded nothing more they could do would be any potential benefit and the condition he’s in is irreversible.”

That position appears to be in line with a policy the Manitoba College of Physicians and Surgeons is now drafting. Contrary to what Canadians told Angus Reid, it would give doctors the exclusive authority within certain parameters to cease or withhold medical treatment, even if the patient or family members disagree as a matter of faith.

Arthur Schafer, the director of the University of Manitoba’s Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics, is concerned that a victory in court for the Golubchuks could “make Canadian hospitals deviate from good medical ethics,” he told the Globe and Mail.

“If the case goes against the hospital on the grounds that once you plug in you can’t unplug,” said Schafer, “I think [physicians] will be a lot slower to plug in, and some people may die who should have been plugged in.”

The Canadian Medical Association Journal recently called for a “national debate on these [end-of-life] issues . . . to ensure that all relevant stakeholders are heard.”

3. Focus On The Family Offers Books On Prolife Apologetics – January 13, 2008

Pro-Life 101; Sanctity of Human Life; Pastors & Ministry Leaders; Audience Type; Focus

In our last newsletter (No. 19, Dec. 18, 2007), I promised to send out a follow-up letter immediately, at which time I fell ill and had to keep to my bed for 10 days. Then, the flu hit me for another six days of house arrest.

Meanwhile, my co-workers proceeded with a press release on Dec. 20, announcing that Catholic Insight, too, like Maclean's (Mark Steyn), the Christian Heritage Party and its leader Ron Gray and, previously, a number of individuals and organizations, has become a victim of the system known as human rights legislation. Human rights commissions are set up in such a way that anyone can make a complaint against anyone else free of charge, after which the HRCs proceed against an accused who will have to pay costs and possible fines without the protection of proper court evidence and procedures.

Because of the notoriety of the Maclean's magazine case involving the well-known Steyn, the press release garnered quite a bit of news coverage, including in Catholic weeklies, LifeSiteNews, the Washington Times, WorldNetDaily and OneNewsNow. We hope to report further on this in our February 2008 edition, as well as provide timely updates on our website, www.catholicinsight.com. Please be sure to let your contacts know about this situation and encourage them to sign up for our newsletter.

Also, we have received good coverage of this controversy in the Catholic Register, including a supportive editorial, "Muzzling religion." However, some of our opponents are posting comments on the editorial attacking us. If you wish to post a supportive comment, access the editorial at www.catholicregister.org/content/view/1421/40/ and add a comment at the bottom. Please note you must register with the website to be able to do so.

For now, here is the text of the article that is running in our January 2008 edition.

Catholic Insight has joined a range of Canadian publications, groups and individuals who have become targets of human rights-based legal attacks recently.

In February 2007, Rob Wells, a member of the Pride Centre of Edmonton, filed a nine-point complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, alleging that C.I. has targeted homosexuals as being a powerful menace, made negative generalizations about them, portrayed them as preying upon children, blamed them for problems in society and the world, portrayed them as dangerous or violent by nature, conveyed the idea that they are devoid of any redeeming qualities and are innately evil, used inflammatory and derogatory language to create a tone of "extreme hatred and contempt," trivialized or celebrated past persecution or tragedy involving them and called for action to be taken against them.

Wells's complaint consists of three pages of isolated and fragmentary extracts from articles dating back as far as 1994, without any context. C.I. counters that these isolated quotes are not meaningful without the contexts of the articles themselves from which they were culled; in fact, most of them are even out of context from the sentences from which they were taken.

C.I. regards all of these charges as unfounded and made with the intent to harass. It intends to defend itself vigorously should the CHRC proceed. The magazine has continually emphasized that, with the respect to homosexual activity, it follows the guidance of the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church has made clear that persons with same-sex attraction must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity and that every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

At the same time, however, the magazine notes the Catechism declares homosexual acts are ones of grave depravity and intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law, close the sexual act to the gift of life, do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity and cannot be approved under any circumstances.

From its beginning in 1993, the magazine has traced and exposed homosexual activists for their attacks against Christians defending the traditional order in law and society and their use of derogatory language against all who stand in their way. Many of C.I.'s articles have quoted homosexual activists, such as the former Burnaby, B.C. MP Svend Robinson, who was known to denounce opponents as "bigots," "homophobes" and "hatemongers." The magazine has never replied in kind, but rather has adhered to the maxim, "Hate the sin, but love the sinner."

Wells's complaint is not his first. In 2006, he sought the shutdown of three websites associated with Craig Chandler in Calgary – freetospeak.ca, freedomradionetwork.ca and concernedchristians.ca. He also currently has a three-pronged action in progress against leader Ron Gray and his Christian Heritage Party. He alleges a CHP reposting of an article on pedophilia being more common among homosexuals, as well as several commentaries Gray wrote, were motivated by hate and the defaming of homosexual persons. Gray says in the course of conversing with the CHRC, a highly placed official of that agency admitted to him that the Human Rights Act is about censorship.

A number of other human rights actions have been launched against individuals or groups, including Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary and the Knights of Columbus in Vancouver. Maclean's magazine and its editor-in-chief, Kenneth Whyte, face a human rights complaint launched by the Canadian Islamic Congress over an October 23, 2006 article by Mark Steyn entitled, "The Future Belongs to Islam." Whyte vows he will let the magazine go bankrupt before allowing the CIC equal space to respond to the article, while Tom Flanagan, Stephen Harper's former campaign manager, is urging all who write or speak in the public domain to rally to Steyn's defence.

Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, acknowledges he never imagined human rights commissions would ultimately be used against freedom of speech. To be acting as censors, he said, was "hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions."

Under the human rights complaints process, as it exists, a complainant's legal costs are covered, while a defendant must pay for expenses out of his own pocket. As well, rules of evidence in place for criminal court proceedings are not followed in human rights hearings.

Catholic Insight will keep readers informed of developments as they unfold in this matter.

Happy New Year 2008 to all of our readers. The New Year promises strong signs of progress in our fight for the "Culture of Life". We ask for your continued prayer-support and be assured of my prayers and Masses for the good work you are doing in promoting Family and Pro-Life Issues.

Last year showed France experiencing a 'baby boom'. Many nations with declining birth rates have attempted various subsidies to encourage more births. France seems to have so far been the only successful one. It heavily subsidizes pregnancy and childcare. A working woman who quits to have her child still gets 80% of her salary during her sixteen-week maternity leave. When she goes back to work, she gets subsidized childcare costing as little as $300 a month. Some do not have to return to their jobs until the toddler turns three years old. A woman with three minor children gets the equivalent of $400 a month in benefits. All of this has jacked up the French birth rate to almost two children per women, which is sharply above that of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and is approximately equal to the birth rate in the United States.

On the other hand, 2007 ended showing that Foetal Abnormality Abortion and Live Birth in England as not good. The British Journal of Ob-Gyn has published a study regarding abortion for foetal abnormality. They analyzed a ten-year period of time during which there were over 600,000 births in the United Kingdom. Among these there was a total of 3,189 cases of "termination of pregnancy for foetal abnormally." Of this number, they report 102 live births. They note "survival duration was a median of 80 minutes, with six cases surviving six hours or more." Clearly, all of these newborn children died. There is no mention of any type of post partum resuscitation or other care. We assume they were left to die on their own.

In addition, Europe and the Stem Cell Controversy causes a split among EU members. A coalition of nations led by Germany has been working to block funding for embryonic stem cell research. Italy and several other nations strongly support this effort. Sweden, the UK, and others favour open research and open exchange across all European nations. A compromise has been proposed that EU money would not directly fund the killing of embryonic human life. Let's wait and see.

Thought: "Men and women want peace: They want it for their families and for their children. However, ambiguously people want to make war and make war; they use violence. With violence we want to build peace. But thus we make war, not peace." Andrea Riccardi (Georgetown University)

Table Of Contents:
1. Problems With "Conception To Natural Death"
2. IVF Clinics Destroy 1m 'Waste' Embryos
3. Burma's Girls Are Victims Of China's One-Child Policy
4. Global Shift Against Death Penalty
5. China Businessman Faces Highest Fine Ever Under Forced Abortion Policy
6. Italy MP Files Bill To Limit Late-Term Abortions After Baby Survives One
7. Adult Stem Cell Research Showed Tremendous Success In 2007 Studies, Trials
8. Preventing Teenage Pregnancy In China
9. Singapore Plans To Create Animals With Human DNA
10. Bioethics Watch: Adventures In Pill Land
11. Free Will And Empathy
12. There Is No Such Thing As A "Fertilized Egg"

Item #1. Problems With "Conception To Natural Death"
Although it was valid many years ago, we can no longer use the phrase "from conception/fertilization to natural death". Why? Because as all parties fully know and understand by now, not all human beings begin to exist at "fertilization" or "conception" (sexual reproduction). Many human beings begin to exist asexually, through quite a number of different kinds of cloning, and different kinds of genetic engineering and other artificial reproductive technologies. This is not new information or science.

Item #2. IVF Clinics Destroy 1m 'Waste' Embryos
More than 1m embryos created for fertility treatment in British clinics have been destroyed over the past 14 years, government figures have shown. The Department of Health data show that 2,137,924 embryos were created using IVF between 1991 and 2005, but about 1.2m were never used. Extra embryos are created to maximise the chance of a viable one being identified for implantation in the prospective mother.

View full article at The Sunday Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3108160.ece

Item #3. Burma's Girls Are Victims Of China's One-Child Policy
Burmese girls are being trafficked into China to supply the shortage of girls resulting from the country's one-child policy, according to an international charity. Mr Andrew Kirkwood, the Burma programmes director for Save the Children, said: "There are millions of men with no chance of marrying. Brothers sell sisters, fathers sell daughters, across the border. It's hard to determine how much they know about what the fate of the girls will be."

Item #4. Global Shift Against Death Penalty
This year, the world will celebrate the 60th anniversary of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights. The intense discussions preceding the adoption of the 1948 declaration exposed the divide between nations that favoured the death penalty and those that opposed it.

View full text at baltimoresun.com:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.deathpenalty01jan01,0,5891659.story

Item #5. China Businessman Faces Highest Fine Ever Under Forced Abortion Policy
Since the Chinese government instituted its family planning policy prohibiting more than one child per couple, it is believed that no one has paid a higher fine for violating it than Li Shaoqing. Li, the head of a cement mixing company, was ordered to fork over $100,000 US because he fathered a second child in 2006.

Item #6. Italy MP Files Bill To Limit Late-Term Abortions After Baby Survives One
A member of the Italian parliament has filed a bill that would halt late-term abortions there following a case of a baby boy who became the victim of an abortion after doctors failed a disability test on him.

Item #7. Adult Stem Cell Research Showed Tremendous Success In 2007 Studies, Trials
2007 has seen further advances in adult stem cell research and therapy. Currently, peer-reviewed studies have documented over 1400 FDA approved trials for 73 different conditions in humans where patient health has been improved through adult stem cell therapy.

Adult stem cells are found throughout the human body from birth onward, in placentas, and in umbilical cord blood. Unlike embryonic stem cell research, no embryos are destroyed in retrieving them.

Treatments with adult stem cells continue to be so impressive and continually increasing that we have decided to publish a yearly update each fall/winter. (Note: There have been no successful treatment trials in human beings using embryonic stem cells.)

Item #8. Preventing Teenage Pregnancy In China
An increasing number of Chinese adolescents engage in premarital and unprotected sexual activity. As a result, there has been a parallel increase in unwanted pregnancies and abortions, as well as in sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV/AIDS. China is now in the early stages of a major HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Item #9. Singapore Plans To Create Animals With Human DNA
Scientists eager to splice human genes with animal cells are seeking public feedback on the prospect of such controversial research, a news report said Wednesday.

Item #10. Bioethics Watch: Adventures In Pill Land
The Pill has gotten a lot of press lately. With the shameful Connecticut law forcing even Catholic hospitals to provide Plan B (an overdose of the birth control pill) to all rape victims to the shocking disclosure that a Maine school board approved school nurses distributing the Pill to junior high students without parental consent or notification, the Pill is promoted as a panacea for all sorts of societal problems.

Item #11. Free Will And Empathy
Synopsis: It is not that we are determined by our environment. Rather, the environment is in large part determined by us. At some point or within a certain period of time in our lives, we make a very general choice about ourselves. We choose to be a certain kind of person. This choice does not take place in a vacuum, but within an environment containing many different kinds of people. Very early on we choose to be like him, or like her, or not like this person or that person. In choosing actions, we simultaneously choose to be a certain way, and the actions that we choose constitute that certain way of being.

Item #12. There Is No Such Thing As A "Fertilized Egg"
It's a matter of basic Biology - the introduction to the study of human reproduction. Everyone should have learned it at least prior to the third year of high school. Astonishingly, many, if not most, Americans don't understand it at all. So, in covering events related in particular to the use of human embryos for stem cell research, terms like "fertilized egg," or "pre-embryo" are bandied about by the media as if human beings were not involved in the discussion.

Get Involved:
1. Be Informed: "My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge." Hosea 4:6. Visit Lifeissues.net Website for insights into current Life Issueswww.lifeissues.net.
2. Pray Daily: for the courage to be God's presence in society and to strongly support those who are deemed "unworthy of life". "If My people who are called by My Name, will humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land." 2 Chronicles 7:14
3. Become Involved: "Journey for Life into the Heart of Asia" is a project, which appeals for donations to help finance plane travel for lectures and seminars to developing countries in Asia. Strong focus is placed on reaching Asian Catholic Major Seminaries, Universities, Parishes, Hospitals and Family/Pro Life related groups. The lectures place emphasis on "The Asian Family at Crossroads: Trends and Challenges". For inquires about no-cost Pro Life Talks to your Asian group: contact Fr. Jerry at jerry@star.quolia.com . To become a supportive Missionary participant for Human Life in Asia, kindly send your donations directly to: Fr. Jerry Novotny, OMI; LifeIssues.net, Editor; Akebono-cho 1-15-9; Kochi City, Japan, 780-8072; (or transfer donation directly to ProLife bank account: Jerome Novotny, Shikoku Bank, Asakura Branch, No. 102-1-0080824)

Contact Editor: Jerry Novotny, OMI; Akebono-cho 1-15-9; Kochi City, Japan, 780-8072; Tel/Fax: 088-843-0406; E-Mail:jerry@lifeissues.net

The following is the most recent article from the Winnipeg Free Press concerning the case of Samuel Golubchuk, an 84 year old man in Winnipeg who's doctors wish to remove his food, fluids and respirator and who's family are honouring Samuel's wishes to have it continued.

As every day passes, Samuel continues to improve, he is now "awake" but the hospital continues to insist that they have the right to pull the plug. In other words, "Futile Care Theory" has gone wild in Manitoba.

The Golubchuk family have faced incredible legal expenses in their attempt to protect the life of their father, Samuel. This is simply a ridiculous part of this story. Most families would not have been able or willing to pay the legal expenses. If you are willing or able to help with the legal expenses please contact the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition at: 1-877-439-3348 or info@epcc.ca

It appears that the hospital is continuing to fight the case based on the possible legal precedents that could be set if the family were to win. It is very distressing that a hospital would battle a family and threaten the life of a person for the reason of maintaining legal precedent.

Please consider sending a letter, fax or email to the Grace Hospital in Winnipeg and demand that they not remove the respirator and the food and fluids from Samuel Golubchuk until his family agrees that he has stopped benefiting from its continuation.

The Salvation Army Grace Hospital
Ms. Gwen Greig
300 Booth Dr.
Winnipeg MB R3J 3M7
E-mail: pr@ggh.mb.ca
Fax: 204-837-0545

TWO weeks after Samuel Golubchuk's family went to court to stop doctors from pulling him off life support last month because he had minimal brain activity, he showed signs he was improving neurologically.

A week later, while doctors still argued to disconnect his ventilator and pull out his feeding tube, the 84-year-old Golubchuk was seen by medical staff to be "awake".

But on Friday in court, more than a month after the battle to keep him alive began; lawyers for the family and doctors were continuing to argue because the physicians say they still need to have control over deciding when to pull the plug.

After court, the family's lawyer, Neil Kravetsky, said Golubchuk is alive today only because of the court's intervention.

"He is showing improvement and neurological responses according to his (hospital) chart. His eyes follow sound and movement. The chart says 'awake'.

But lawyer Bill Olson, who represents Grace hospital, said even if Golubchuk has improved, he still isn't as well as he was when he entered the hospital's intensive care unit and his prognosis continues to be dim.

Olson said even if the judge gives the doctors the green light to pull the plug, it might not happen because the doctors would re-evaluate Golubchuk's medical status to see if the action is still warranted.

"All the court is ruling on is who has the right to make the judgment," he said.

Olson said the medical system would bog down if final life decisions were taken from the hands of doctors and given to the courts.

At the end of the hearing on Friday, Justice Perry Schulman of Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench said he would either render a decision on the matter or give the lawyers "directions" sometime next week.

Golubchuk suffered a brain injury in June 2003 when he fell, but he could still communicate and understand.

He was living at Deer Lodge Centre, but was admitted to Grace in October for pneumonia and pulmonary hypertension.

But after Golubchuk's health continued to go downhill and doctors believed his situation to be hopeless, they told the family they were going to take him off life support on Nov. 30 of last year.

Schulman, who began hearing the precedent-setting civil case last month, is being asked to rule on whether Grace doctors have the right to take Golubchuk off life support against the wishes of his family.

Golubchuk's family has been arguing the doctors would be violating his Orthodox Jewish religious beliefs and committing a sin if they hasten his death.

The Global Jihad By "Human Rights" Commissions – January 11, 2008

I have just returned home from my session at the kangaroo court, called the Alberta human rights commission. Here is my opening statement that I delivered at the interrogation. I will post more details about the interrogation soon.

My name is Ezra Levant. Before this government interrogation begins, I will make a statement.

When the Western Standard magazine printed the Danish cartoons of Mohammed two years ago, I was the publisher. It was the proudest moment of my public life. I would do it again today. In fact, I did do it again today. Though the Western Standard, sadly, no longer publishes a print edition, I posted the cartoons this morning on my website, ezralevant.com.

I am here at this government interrogation under protest. It is my position that the government has no legal or moral authority to interrogate me or anyone else for publishing these words and pictures. That is a violation of my ancient and inalienable freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and in this case, religious freedom and the separation of mosque and state. It is especially perverted that a bureaucracy calling itself the Alberta human rights commission would be the government agency violating my human rights. So I will now call those bureaucrats “the commission” or “the hrc”, since to call the commission a “human rights commission” is to destroy the meaning of those words.

I believe that this commission has no proper authority over me. The commission was meant as a low-level, quasi-judicial body to arbitrate squabbles about housing, employment and other matters, where a complainant felt that their race or sex was the reason they were discriminated against. The commission was meant to deal with deeds, not words or ideas. Now the commission, which is funded by a secular government, from the pockets of taxpayers of all backgrounds, is taking it upon itself to be an enforcer of the views of radical Islam. So much for the separation of mosque and state.

I have read the past few years’ worth of decisions from this commission, and it is clear that it has become a dump for the junk that gets rejected from the real legal system. I read one case where a male hair salon student complained that he was called a “loser” by the girls in the class. The commission actually had a hearing about this. Another case was a kitchen manager with Hepatitis-C, who complained that it was against her rights to be fired. The commission actually agreed with her, and forced the restaurant to pay her $4,900. In other words, the commission is a joke – it’s the Alberta equivalent of a U.S. television pseudo-court like Judge Judy – except that Judge Judy actually was a judge, whereas none of the commission’s panellists are judges, and some aren’t even lawyers. And, unlike the commission, Judge Judy believes in freedom of speech.

It’s bad enough that this sick joke is being wreaked on hair salons and restaurants. But it’s even worse now that the commissions are attacking free speech. That’s my first point: the commissions have leapt out of the small cage they were confined to, and are now attacking our fundamental freedoms. As Alan Borovoy, Canada’s leading civil libertarian, a man who helped form these commissions in the 60’s and 70’s, wrote, in specific reference to our magazine, being a censor is, quote, “hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions. There should be no question of the right to publish the impugned cartoons.” Unquote. Since the commission is so obviously out of control, he said quote “It would be best, therefore, to change the provisions of the Human Rights Act to remove any such ambiguities of interpretation.” Unquote.

The commission has no legal authority to act as censor. It is not in their statutory authority. They’re just making it up – even Alan Borovoy says so.

But even if the commissions had some statutory fig leaf for their attempts at political and religious censorship, it would still be unlawful and unconstitutional.

We have a heritage of free speech that we inherited from Great Britain that goes back to the year 1215 and the Magna Carta. We have a heritage of eight hundred years of British common law protection for speech, augmented by 250 years of common law in Canada.

That common law has been restated in various fundamental documents, especially since the Second World War.

In 1948, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Canada is a party, declared that, quote:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Those were even called “fundamental freedoms” – to give them extra importance.

For a government bureaucrat to call any publisher or anyone else to an interrogation to be quizzed about his political or religious expression is a violation of 800 years of common law, a Universal Declaration of Rights, a Bill of Rights and a Charter of Rights. This commission is applying Saudi values, not Canadian values.

It is also deeply procedurally one-sided and unjust. The complainant – in this case, a radical Muslim imam, who was trained at an officially anti-Semitic university in Saudi Arabia, and who has called for sharia law to govern Canada – doesn’t have to pay a penny; Alberta taxpayers pay for the prosecution of the complaint against me. The victims of the complaints, like the Western Standard, have to pay for their own lawyers from their own pockets. Even if we win, we lose – the process has become the punishment. (At this point, I’d like to thank the magazine’s many donors who have given their own money to help us fight against the Saudi imam and his enablers in the Alberta government.)

It is procedurally unfair. Unlike real courts, there is no way to apply for a dismissal of nuisance lawsuits. Common law rules of evidence don’t apply. Rules of court don’t apply. It is a system that is part Kafka, and part Stalin. Even this interrogation today – at which I appear under duress – saw the commission tell me whom I could or could not bring with me as my counsel and advisors.

I have no faith in this farcical commission. But I do have faith in the justice and good sense of my fellow Albertans and Canadians. I believe that the better they understand this case, the more shocked they will be. I am here under your compulsion to answer the commission’s questions. But it is not I who am on trial: it is the freedom of all Canadians.

By his estimate he's performed over 100,000 abortions, many while it was still highly illegal. For that Dr Henry Morgentaler was jailed and called variously hero and murderer. This year marks the 20th anniversary of his victory in the landmark /Morgentaler v Her Majesty the Queen/ case that decriminalized abortion in Canada. We spoke to the world's most notorious abortionist at his Toronto office about the ruling, sex-selective abortion and ping-pong.

It's been 20 years since the 1988 ruling in your favour. Looking back, how do feel about it? And I'm very proud of what I have been able to achieve and the crowning achievement was the Supreme Court decision of 1988, which legalized abortion, took it out of the criminal code and doctors performing abortions were no longer considered as criminals and women could ask for an abortion and obtain one under good conditions and thereby protect their health by reducing the fatality, and their dignity as well. It was a revolutionary decision, really, with tremendous consequences for the health and well being of women. I think that's the most important thing: the safety of women has increased a hundred-fold.

Canada's current government is, shall we say, ambivalent about abortion. Are you worried they might try to restrict access? They're not ambivalent, they're hostile! Yeah, I was worried about the Conservatives coming to power, but although they are known to be hostile I don't think they will risk alienating 80% of Canadians who believe in freedom of choice.

Why did you get involved fighting for abortion rights? Well, it sort of came gradually. I was a general practitioner in Montreal, a general practitioner, and from time to time I had women come in for abortions and it was highly illegal at that time and if I helped them I could go to jail, theoretically for the rest of my life. I thought it was terrible that these women were subjected to the danger of illegal abortions and self-induced abortion, a tremendous toll of death and injury.

Do you find it strange that it was a man going to jail for this and not a woman? Well, I never thought about it that way [laughs]. I think to me it was a fight for justice. Whether it was a woman who undertook that or a man, to me it didn't really matter too much. I was a medical doctor, I was in the forefront of this fight and I was qualified to help women and I didn't see any reason why I should be prevented from doing that.

Were you upset that your fellow doctors didn't join the cause? I understood – it isn't easy for anyone to risk their life, to go to prison and risk the security of their family and so on. It wasn't easy for me either. I had decided to do that; I had decided it was my duty as a medical doctor and a humanist. So I wasn't going to preach to others to sacrifice themselves. The sacrifice had to be me.

Did they support you in spirit, at least? They did. Many supported me in spirit and many doctors referred patients to me.

Why humanism? I was a humanist probably from early childhood. My father had been a leader of the socialist party in Poland so it was sort of a humanistic home and the ideals of humanism – human dignity and doing something for the betterment of society – were sort of part of the ethos of the family.

Who's your humanist hero? Well, my favourite heroes are Bertrand Russell, Eric Frum, and I would name Dr Barnett Slepian who was shot in Buffalo by anti-abortion activists. He was a very good doctor.

What about some of the more famous humanists out there, like Kurt Vonnegut and Isaac Asimov? I met Kurt Vonnegut, but I didn't meet Asimov, though I enjoyed reading some of his books.

Should doctors be allowed to conscientiously object to performing an abortion? Yes. One fundamental reason is that doctors should not be obliged to do things, which they don't approve of themselves, and secondly, a more practical reason, a doctor who doesn't believe in it is more likely not to do a good job.

Is it true that when you were in prison, you threw your underwear at one of the guards? It's a true story! I was set upon by guards unjustly and they asked me to disrobe and I was in a state of indignation and fury, and when they asked me to take off my underwear I took it off and threw it in his face. He was very angry – I was afraid he might hit me but he restrained himself.

Do you keep count of the death threats you receive? I never wrote it down, but there were many. After a while I learned to ignore them and not to take them seriously.

But some of them were serious. Your clinic in Toronto was bombed. It was in the middle of the night so fortunately no one was there except a neighbour who was a bit affected. It showed the fury of the anti-abortionists and they were dangerous, there's no doubt about it.

I hear you got yourself a bulletproof vest. Yes, I did get one but I very seldom use it. I have it at home somewhere. The threats are very serious and I took them seriously, but somehow I was so convinced that what I was doing was right and just and noble that I didn't think that anything was going to happen to me. I'm not a believer in God, so I couldn't believe that God would come help me but whatever – I thought that I would survive, and I did.

Did the fact that you survived Dachau and Auschwitz help you? I'm not sure it helped me – it's hard to judge. The fact I survived through the concentration camps gave me a heightened feeling of injustice and I saw injustice meted out to women who needed abortions.

So in a way your experience in the concentration camps is responsible for abortion rights in Canada. To a certain extent, yes. I was sensitized to injustice and when I was in a position to do something about it, I felt it was a duty to do so, at whatever risk there was. I had a feeling I was fighting for fundamental justice.

The portrait of you in the book "A Difficult Hero" is far from the image of you as a freedom fighter. In fact you're painted as arrogant and a womanizer. I got used to being criticized or slandered or portrayed in a negative light. So this is part of the price you pay for notoriety or fame or whatever. And let's face it, I'm not perfect. (Laughs).

You've suffered from depression. Do you think that was the result of stress from being jailed and fighting your legal battles? I don't think so, no. It had to do more with my experience in the concentration camps and the ghetto and the fact that I was a victim of circumstances beyond my control and there's nothing I could do except to endure and hope for better times.

Women have become much more proactive in taking charge of their healthcare in recent years. Did the 1988 decision have anything to do with that? I hope it has something to do with it. In general I think what happened was the recognition of the right to abortion gave a tremendous boost to women in the sense that they felt they were equal to men as far as the law was concerned and the law would consider them equal and take care of their needs. I think it was a tremendous forward step in the recognition of women's rights and I think it empowered women and that was a very good thing.

What's your opinion of the US Supreme Court decision to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act? It's not a fair way of dealing with the issue. The Supreme Court in the United States has become more reactionary. Right now there is a majority of 5 to 4 for the anti-abortionists.

Do you think Roe v Wade could be reversed, or parts of it? I hope it won't be reversed. I don't think it will ever go back to a complete prohibition of abortion in the United States.

Sex-selective abortion has become a big issue within certain cultural groups in Canada. Do you think it's okay for a woman to abort if the foetus isn't the sex she wanted? It's a difficult question. On the one side, for human rights, parents should have the right to decide for themselves. But on the other hand it seems a bit awkward to eliminate a foetus on the basis of gender.

You're taking the government of New Brunswick to court over the poor abortion access there. What's going on in NB? It's an issue of religion mainly, they are very highly religious and most of it is influenced by religious groups like Catholics and anti-choice Protestants. Even though there's been a change in government – the Conservatives were there for a long time and recently the Liberals took over – there's no change in abortion policy, and they're just as hostile to abortion as the previous government.

Where does your case stand? It's being held up by a judge who is supposed to pronounce on my status as someone who is able to challenge the rule, that I should be able to bring the case forward. And the anti-abortion people say it shouldn't be a man, it should be a woman who brings this forward. I don't see the reason.

Are you worried you'll lose? I am concerned in the sense that I'd like to see it resolved, and hopefully get a good judgement because the women of New Brunswick are really deprived of services. I had opened a clinic there about nine or 10 years ago because women from New Brunswick used to come to my clinic in Montreal which is 10 hours away by car and we had a lot – about 300 or 400 women a year. It has been very busy but women have to pay and I think that is completely unjust. It's a service that is supposed to be under Medicare. The government was claiming 'We have a doctor shortage, we don't have the doctors who can do it.' Then a couple of doctors actually came forward and offered to continue the services in Fredericton at a hospital.

Were you disappointed you weren't able to open your clinic in Nunavut? Yes, but what can you do? You can't do everything in life. You have to do what is possible. But I have trained doctors for a number of clinics outside of this one [Toronto] that is my contribution. I always do training for free. I believe it is a public service, I didn't think it was fair I should charge them.

Where do you stand on the public-private healthcare debate? I think in general healthcare should be public. There are exceptions for some private initiatives that might be worthwhile to provide more facilities for people. But I am not dogmatic in any sense – I think what works is what works. If additional facilities are opened by private doctors, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Have you had a good experience in your contact with the healthcare system yourself, as a patient? Yeah. Unfortunately I had a serious operation about a year ago on my heart and I am still not completely recovered from it but I am 95% recovered. I had good care.

There was a poll in a magazine called The Beaver last summer, called The Worst Canadian. You came in third – ahead of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka but behind Pierre Trudeau, the worst Canadian 'winner.' But a couple of years ago, you were the 87th greatest Canadian on CBC. How do you feel about being such a divisive figure? I know it's a very contentious issue, and many people have very strong feelings about it, most of them are religious people, and the Bible determines their opinions. For many reasons abortion has always been condemned by the Catholic Church. They are adamantly opposed to abortion and opposed to me as a person as well. I've had a lot of correspondence that was critical, to say the least, of what I was doing, disapproving and treating me as a murderer and using all kinds of epithets towards me, whereas I believe what I was doing was the height of humanism and good deeds. So it was hard. Some people admired me and some people hated me for what I was doing. I had to have my inner compass. In my mind, I was doing a great job, helping women out of a terrible dilemma, saving their lives and their future fertility and their dignity. The fact that many people disapproved didn't affect me too much.

There was an Ipsos-Reid poll a few years that said almost three-quarters of young women in Canada had never heard of you. Does that bug you? It's neither good nor bad. It's hard to evaluate that. In the last 20 years since the Supreme Court decision, abortion has become more available and more accepted and therefore those people who fought for this right have had to be forgotten I guess.

Are you worried that people have become complacent? I think people are possibly a bit complacent, yeah, and they don't realize the high stakes of this battle, but so far abortion rights have not been challenged too much, people feel good enough is good enough and we just continue the way it is.

Many years ago you predicted legalizing abortions would cause crime to drop. And you were right – it did. A book called Freakonomics, written a few years ago by Levitt and Dubner said they discovered this theory. Yeah, I read that. They stole my idea. I'm proud of the fact that I was the first one to point this out. I think I brought this forward in about 1985 and then it was confirmed by these two researchers. I felt justified, that I was a prophet, almost. It made sense – the less children who are brutalized and unfairly treated, the fewer of them will become criminals who don't care about other people.

A lot of people believe women are permanently traumatized by abortion. It's completely untrue. If an abortion is done in a good atmosphere like in any of my clinics women are treated with dignity and understanding and they don't feel traumatized. They feel they have made a difficult decision and fortunately there are nice, sympathetic people who are able to take care of them and they don't usually feel terrible about it.

Though some of them feel bad about it for their own reasons, because they've been conditioned to believe that abortion is murder or a terrible thing to do. Women can be counselled here, and some of that can be neutralized by counselling, but not necessarily everything. Unfortunately some women remain with a sense of guilt for a long time.

In fact, the woman in Roe v Wade changed her mind. Yes, Norma McCorvey, she turned and now she condemns all abortions.

In Quebec, the sovereigntist Parti Québecois supported you in the 70s. Do you think Quebec would support you today, despite the recent resurgence of conservative ideology there? I don't think they've changed their position on abortion. Quebec has become a very progressive province and the majority of the population are in favour of the right of women to have abortions. I recently won a case in Quebec where the government policy has been reversed and now women can get abortions paid for by the government of Quebec.

Recently there's been a debate in Quebec about immigrants' rights. Have you been following that, as an immigrant yourself? Yes, there's been a bit of a backlash against immigrants. I don't think it'll last too long; it is sort of one of these things that happens occasionally.

Does the resurgence of anti-Semitism that runs through that debate disturb you at all? It never has been a big issue for me.

When the Chantal Daigle case happened in Quebec, it sort of brought the whole thing back. What was your reaction to that case? I thought she prevailed over prejudice, and I'm glad she did. She fought for her own right, she was pregnant and didn't want to be pregnant and eventually she got the abortion which she wanted and everything was okay.

Were you worried when that judgement came through – one year after your case – that it was going to undo all your work? No, I wasn't really worried. I expected a good result and a good result happened.

You lived in Montreal for many years. Are there things you miss about living there? Yes, I miss a lot things about living there. It's still my favourite city.

Are you a fan of some of the classic eateries like Schwartz's and Moishes? (Laughs) Yeah, I used to go to Moishes and Schwartz's.

Do you know the Montreal punk band, Me Mom and Morgentaler? Yeah, sure. I met them and I listened to their music. They're a nice group. I like the band, but I think they disbanded.

You'll be glad to hear they reformed and they're touring again. How did you meet them? I invited them to my house and they came and we had a party. And then I went to see one of their performances.

Your life's been pretty punk rock. Is that your kind of music? Not necessarily. (Laughs)

Do you have a superpower that people don't know about? I don't believe in superpowers. But I was a ping-pong champion.

Do you have a message for Canadian doctors on the 20th anniversary of the decision? My message would be to treat abortion patients with empathy and good care and to allow them the freedom of choice and to provide good care. And not to be judgmental. The decision is not easy usually and once a request is made it is after due consideration and women deserve to be treated with respect and understanding. I think that's about it.

In 1989, Chantal Daigle's abusive boyfriend Jean-Guy Tremblay won an injunction from the Quebec Court of Appeal preventing her from getting an abortion. The ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, which found that the foetus has no legal status as a person.

Please note: this is a longer web-only version of the interview that appeared in the print edition of January 15, 2008.

As recent homicides in Edmonton and Toronto have shown, the /Criminal Code/ allows for a person accused of murdering a pregnant woman to be charged only in connection with her death – even though the baby she was carrying also died with her.

“I’ve made no secret of the fact that I’m pro-life,” Epp told the /Sun/. “But this bill goes very narrowly at one issue – where the woman has made the choice to have the child, and that choice is taken away unilaterally, without her consent and usually with violence.”

A case in point occurred just last week in Winnipeg, when Joanne Nadine Hoeppner, 28-years-old and eight months pregnant, was shot to death in her home when she went to answer a knock at the door, the /Winnipeg Free Press http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/story/4101779p-4700008c.html/reported.

“But it’s exactly this type of violence that displays a need for more deterrents to dissuade criminals so bold they don’t even bother to look at their targets before they start shooting. If someone intentionally shoots blindly at another person, that person must be held responsible for that choice and every death it causes.”

At the same time, C-484 makes it clear that a woman’s alleged attacker would need to have known of her pregnancy in order to be charged with killing or injuring her baby.

Yet abortion advocates are afraid that C-484 could ultimately imperil a woman’s right to abortion since it presumes that an unborn child is a human being and therefore entitled to protection under the law.

Even so, it seems most Canadians do in fact want this type of legal protection for the unborn. As LifeSiteNews.com http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/dec/07121305.html reported, a recent Environics poll found that 72 per cent of Canadians would at least support “legislation making it a separate crime to injure or kill a foetus during an attack on the mother.” That includes 55 per cent of those who favour the status quo, namely no restrictions at all on abortion.

Campaign Life Coalition National Newsletter (Current)

The Global Jihad By "Human Rights" Commissions – January 11, 2008