"A Bad Precedent"? You Betcha!

Some follow-up to my post yesterday about the bungling around the approval of Mifegymiso (abortion pill) for inclusion in taxpayer-funded provincial healthcare plans.

The Globe and Mail is still on the story.

It seems that when Mifegymiso's manufacturer, Celopharma, began the long and winding (and politically stymied? remember, there were CONservatives in charge then) process, there were no costs associated with the Common Drug Review.

[Paula Tenenbaum, president of Celopharma] said that when the company began the Health Canada application process in late 2011, the Common Drug Review – which is a separate process, not run by Health Canada – was offered at no cost to pharmaceutical companies. “As a result, we did not budget for the $72,000,” she said. The company asked for a fee reduction or a two-year payment plan, but that proposal was rebuffed.

The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), which oversees the Common Drug Review, confirmed the fees only came into effect in September of 2014. (Ms. Tenenbaum said the full process would actually cost between $100,000 and $150,000; CADTH disagreed and reiterated the $72,000 figure.)

Brent Fraser, the vice-president of pharmaceutical reviews for CADTH, said on Tuesday that giving Celopharma a break on the fees could set a bad precedent.

Here's the short version of drug approval works in Canada.

First, a new drug has to go through Health Canada's Health Products and Food Branch (HPFB), where it is assessed for safety, quality, and effectiveness.

How long does this take? Well, it's hard to say from the website's blah-blah.

HPFB has set internationally competitive performance targets for its conduct of reviews. The length of time for review depends on the product being submitted and the size and quality of the submission, and is influenced by HPFB's workload and human resources.

This part of the ordeal was finally completed and the good news reported in July 2015.

Then Health Canada issues a monograph detailing who may prescribe it, with what training, and other restrictions. That link is from April this year, when abortion providers were getting worried about the folderol being proposed.

But getting provincial healthcare plans to pay for it is a whole other regulatory nightmare.

And of course, Quebec is slightly different.

Here's how it works in Quebec.

Authorization from Health Canada is the first step common to both Quebec and the rest of Canada.

In the rest of Canada, new non-cancer drugs go to Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) for what is called a Common Drug Review (CDR). Cancer drugs go to the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review.

In Quebec, both cancer and non-cancer drugs go to the Institut national d’excellence en santé et en services sociaux (INESSS).

Expert committees evaluate the new drugs.

If the drug’s therapeutic value has been established, INESSS then evaluates the drug based on four criteria: reasonableness of price charged; cost-effectiveness ratio; impact on the health of the population; effect on the basic prescription drug insurance plan.

Then provincial health departments decide whether to include it. In Quebec, the article notes, sometimes politicians have over-ridden recommendations to include very expensive drugs.

So. Celopharma entered the labyrinth in 2011 and budgeted based on the rules at the time. Health Canada took its sweet time to approve a drug that has been in use in France for 30 years and in the US for over 15 years.

Meanwhile, the independent agency, CADTH, that must review it before provincial healthcare plans will pay for it, slaps on some whopping big fees.

And CADTH can't give the company a break because it would "set a bad precedent."

The rules were changed in the middle of the game -- a game that Celopharma had zero control over -- and there's no relief offered?

This seems unfair to say the least.

There's got to be a way around this. In Australia, a Real Feminist PM, Julia Gillard simply ordered that the drug be listed on its taxpayer funded Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

I realize that things are done differently here, but surely our globally touted FeministPM™, with his gender-balanced cabinet and other meaningless fripperies of respect for women and their rights, could bloody well do something.

Unless of course this whole schmozzle has been engineered as a sleight-of-hand slap in the face to Canadian women, while keeping the Blue Liberals onside.

Whaaaat? I hear you say. Liberals saying one thing and doing another?????????

Abortion Access? Another slap in the face for Canadians

Gee. You'd almost think that the gynoticians politicians don't want women to access the abortion pill, widely touted to improve access for people living in the wide swaths of remote, rural, and medically underserved Canada.

The Globe and Mail reported yesterday.

When the gold standard in medical abortion drugs finally becomes available in Canada later this year, the $300 cost of the pills will not be covered by most provincial drug plans, The Globe and Mail has learned.

The company that makes Mifegymiso has bowed out of an essential step on the path to public reimbursements for new drugs over the $72,000 price tag for a standard review of the medication’s cost effectiveness.

Provincial governments everywhere but Quebec say the company’s decision is preventing them from adding the two-drug abortion regimen to their list of publicly funded drugs, meaning women will have to reach into their own wallets or rely on private insurance to pay for Mifegymiso.

This "essential step" is called the Common Drug Review.

Today the Globe published an editorial.

Already the victims of Health Canada’s glacial bureaucracy, and of its paternalistic view of their ability to safely administer prescription drugs to themselves, Canadian women waiting to be able to use the most commonly prescribed medical abortion treatment in the world woke up to a fresh slap in the face on Monday.

The editorial recalls the ridiculously long and tortured approval process in Canada and points out that RU486, or mifepristone, has been available since 1987 in France, since 2000 in the US.

The writers also note that abortion is a common medical procedure, with surgical abortion being delivered at no cost as part of taxpayer-funded Medicare.

This latest bad news – that women will have to pay for a medical treatment to which they have a right – is the last straw. Ottawa should find a way to waive the cost of the Common Drug Review and make Mifegymiso available for free as quickly as possible.

Want to see how a Feminist PM™ handled this situation?

Like this.

Julia Gillard's last act as prime minister included signing off on cabinet approval for slashing the cost of abortion pill RU486 to as little as $12.

Listing the abortion drug on the taxpayer-funded Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) will see the price of a medical abortion in Australia drop from up to $800 to just $12 for concession card holders from August 1.

Women not eligible for concessions will pay around $70 under the PBS.

This is what a Feminist PM™ looks like.

This is what a Fake Feminist PM™ looks like.

UPDATE: Rules changed on fees for Common Drug Review during the process.

Is Our Pro-Lifers Losing?* Part I: The New Government

First, the happy dance. Press Progress reports on 12 "star" Cons who will no longer be with us. Its list contains several cabinet ministers who went down to defeat, as well as Numero Uno MP Fetus Freak, Stephen Woodworth.

Of other prominent CON dinosaurs: Vellacott and Benoit didn't run;
in addition to Woodworth, Lizon also lost; and Warawa and Trost are baaaack.

Also back are the "grandfathered-in" (appropriate term, yes?), but now supposedly muzzled Liberals for Life: Kevin Lamoureux, Lawrence MacAuley, John McKay, Francis Scarpallegia, and Borys Wrzesnewskyj.

Both the anti-choice Lib and NDP candidates I wrote about here lost too.

There are, of course, many unknowns among the new CONs. Macleans put out a nifty graphic you can sort by various criteria such as age, gender, region, and incumbent/rookie status. By my count, there are 33 CPC rookies.

Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada has issued new estimates of anti-choice MPs. They figure we're down to 18% of the new House compared to 36% of the previous gang.

So, pro-choice upshot of Election 2015: we can relax a little. Given that the Liberals got a majority and the newly explicit stand of the party is pro-choice, it's unlikely the government will introduce any sneaky new measures or even tolerate private member's bills or motions from its own back benches.

The NDP won't either, so we'll be keeping an eye on the usual CON suspects, while assessing the new goobers.

Trudeau promised many things on the campaign. We'll be watching for abortion funding to be returned to Canada's foreign aid programs and for the scoff-law provinces of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick to be brought to heel.

More thoughts on his other promises to come.

* Title's origin will be revealed in Part II.

UPDATE (Oct. 22/15): LieShite identifies new fetus freak MPs for us.

#No2Trudeau Campaign: Not Just Anti-Abortion?

Talk about an unholy alliance. Campaign Life and the Centre for Bioethical Refoooorm (aka FetusMobile Gang) have teamed up to target Justin Trudeau -- and only Justin Trudeau -- over his moderate and, some might say, fairly mealy-mouthed, pro-choice stand.

They're billing it as the most MASSIVEST EVER ANTI-ABORTION CAMPAIGN (or some such).

I will have more to say about it later, but now I want to share a longish Facebook account by Adam Stirling*. It's self-explanatory.

I spent most of Friday evening at the University of Victoria watching the cross-country launch of what has been claimed to be the largest pro-life campaign in Canadian history.

I've long been a vocal supporter of pro-choice policies, and because of this I have supported Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau's unequivocal stance in favour of reproductive freedom as I have considered seeking the nomination for the party. It is Mr Trudeau's stance in favour of women's reproductive rights that has supposedly sparked the ‪#‎no2trudeau‬ campaign being undertaken by this pro-life group.

After viewing the presentation, however, I have become convinced that this organization is little more than a willing or unwilling surrogate for the Conservative Party.

In what would become the disturbingly consistent theme of the evening, the presentation begins by identifying what it believes to be the source of Canada's abortion issue: the name Trudeau. After placing the anchor of blame on the policies of Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the presentation glazes over decades of complex social change and legal battles and begins a relentless political attack upon on his son. This presentation attacks Justin Trudeau in regards to nearly every conceivable issue.

The presentation is supposedly about abortion, but it criticises Justin Trudeau's position on the development of Canada's oil sands and comments he's made about Canada's CF-18 fighter jets. It ridicules him over a press scrum in which he once spoke in the third person about his love for Canada. It questions his ability to manage Canada's finances, and it makes fun of his hair.

Furthermore, at no point does the seemingly partisan bombardment die down long enough to even acknowledge that the NDP exists.

Indeed, the speakers make mention of Canada's "two main parties."

I enjoyed the conversations with the legitimate attendees in the audience, but I don't think I've ever seen a more nakedly partisan anti-Liberal video presentation in my entire life.

The video made no mention of the PMO killing Conservative MP Mark Warawa's motions regarding the study of abortion. I was the one who had to ask the presenters about that. Stephen Harper has been stopping votes on abortion from taking place for 8-years. I asked: why isn't his face on the bus outside?

They were able to provide no logical answer.

I was honest with them. I said that the Liberal Party will not move on this issue. No candidate who would vote to reopen the abortion debate is permitted in the party. The difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives is the Liberals are honest about this issue.

The Conservatives will happily take votes from people like those in attendance at this event, but if pro-life views ever gain a foothold in the party, Harper will bring down the hammer again, just like he did with Warawa.

I understand why pro-life advocates might not support the Liberal Party, but it bothers me that the presenters seemed to suggest the Conservative party actually might act on their views. The audience was encouraged to support "pro-life" candidates, who would presumably only be in Conservative party. Audience members were even offered scripts with which they could perform public outreach work for these candidates. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

After repeated questioning, I was able to make the presenters admit to the audience that it is immensely unlikely Harper will re-open the issue of abortion. They can vote for Harper all they want, but the Conservative party will only pay lip service to the pro-life movement. It will not under any circumstances re-open the abortion debate any more than the Liberal Party will.

But it wasn't just the one-sided partisan nature of the attacks at this event that bothered me, it was the apparent lack of critical information. The speakers were unable to provide details sought by the audience regarding the legality of the Supreme Court ruling 27 years ago. Instead, they answered with vague details on how the state-by-state regulations vary in the United States. I had to speak up and clarify that Canada's Supreme Court found in 1988 that Section 251 of the Criminal Code violated Section Seven (Personal Security) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that this section of the Criminal Code could not be saved under Section One of the Charter. I'm not a lawyer and even I know that, but I'm not sure either of the speakers at the front of the room had any idea what I was talking about...

As for content, the video was horrible. At one point, it was little more than graphic images of fetuses, accompanied with high tempo music, mixed with repeated sound clips of both Justin Trudeau and Peter Mansbridge. The video jumped from topics such as slavery, to the Vietnam War, to Rosa Parks, to (as I mentioned) Justin Trudeau's hair...

There were inspirational quotes from Thomas Jefferson (what country is this?) and gushing, unironic praise of the bold leadership displayed on restricting abortion by George W. Bush, the "Leader of the Free World."

George W. Bush was praised...

And nobody laughed...

It was like I was trapped in a skit on Saturday Night Live... I really couldn't have created a more ridiculous parody of these videos if I had tried.

All that aside, it is not the content of this presentation that I found the most troubling. No, what was most troubling about this tangled mess of a presentation is what was *not* there.

I mentioned it to the organizers afterward, and they say they'll change it, but there is one word that I did not hear mentioned during the entire first half of the evening.

Do you know what that word is?

"Woman"

Adam's bio at his blog.

* Adam gave permission with this proviso: "reproduction consent does not imply endorsement on my part for any other content found on any site."

Why aren't intelligent blondes speaking up against this abomination?

A few weeks back, I joked on Twitter about how *some* blondes made the whole... race? species? look dumb, and that the smart ones should sue for defamation of character.

You know, just as every secular, cultural or religious muslim should loudly, publicly denounce every act of violence committed by barbaric individuals and groups who exploit an ideological interpretation of Islam to justify their carnage and sexual terrorism. 

And now this, in my email box this morning.

Just put "Eve Adams" in a search box on Twitter. Hundreds of tweets and re-tweets.  Some amusing. Some informative. Some trenchant. Some ... not so much.

One has to wonder if the testosterone-endowed members of the LPC even bothered consulting the savvy women in their party to ascertain whether accepting Adams was a sagacious decision.

At DJ! we wrote this about Adams right after the 2011 election. Before the first break-up with Soudas. Their reconciliations. The betrayals. The ongoing media soap opera.

So. Did Eve Adams jump or was she pushed?

There's a third possibility.

She and her partner Dimitri Soudas are being deliberately planted by Harper to gather intelligence on the LPC election campaign plans and to deliberately derail them.  Yes, that would be quite a crafty, brazen Machiavellian move — but remember how the CPC was founded?

Or, the toxic duo's tactical defection to the neoLibs is temporary, one that they will leverage when Harper is gone and the CPC flounders as the PC did after Mulroney's departure + Kim Campbell's ignominious defeat in 1993. Will DimEve Soudams™ triumphantly return to the party with considerable political *assets* that can be exploited?

Frank has another take, as always quite irreverent.

Only time will tell.

Meanwhile, one is reminded of this famous unblonde quote:

UPDATE: Harper's Politburo/PMO orchestrates the predictable drive-by bousillage with the gleeful assistance of its pet trolls, Attack Parrots and smarmy QMI stenographers. This one from Sun hack Lorne Gunter is particularly vile and sexist.

No Country for Old White Men

Or, Point and Laugh.

A group of former Liberal backbenchers is blasting Justin Trudeau’s “discriminatory” decision to call on all party MPs to vote in favour of abortion rights in Canada.

Many (most?) of these pathetic old misogynists and homophobes are former members of Liberals for Life, aka the Gang that Prompted Jean Chrétien to Over-ride Riding Association Takeovers Nominations.

Chief among them, of course, is Tom Wappel, an execrable POS if there ever was one. (Really, check the Wiki entry.)

Here at DJ! we're no great fans of Justin Trudeau, but you gotta love this.

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, faced with an open letter from seven former Liberal MPs denouncing him for his stance on abortion, tweeted that the days "when old men get to decide what a woman does with her body are long gone."

True that those days are long gone, but those who can't accept it refuse to give up. So, the fight continues. Rallies across Canada for expanded and improved abortion access are planned for tomorrow, Saturday, September 20.

h/t for illustration.

Fuck the Debate: Part Eleventy-One

Fetus fetishists wonder why we won't debate them.

Here's example number umpty-trillion.

Sun News tries a moronic gotcha on Justin Trudeau. Publishes story with this headline: "Justin Trudeau Would Not Stop Sex-Selective Abortion."

The anti-choice stenographers pick it up. Here's LifeShite with the headline: "Justin Trudeau: sex-selective abortion a 'right'; Liberals won't consider ban."

SUZY ALL CAPS does her obeisance under "Justin Trudeau Supports Sex-Selection Being Legal." (Plain text url for the usual reason: http://www.bigbluewave.ca/2014/05/video-justin-trudeau-supports-sex.html)

And the Focus on the Family gals at ProWomanProLies: "When gendercide become [sic] a Charter Right in Canada."

Here's the question (full transcript at the Sun link):

MARISSA SEMKIW: A woman comes to you. She says she's pregnant with a girl and she wants to terminate the life of the child because it's a girl. What would you say to her?

We all know that Justin Trudeau is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Someone with a bit more on the ball might have replied: "Hello? I am the leader of a political party, not a counsellor or an advice columnist. What the hell kind of BS question is that?"

He didn't. He waffled around, finally -- after persistent badgering -- settling on: “I will leave discussions like that between a woman and the health professionals that she encounters.”

This is just like the idiotic harassment pro-choice demonstrators endured at the hands of another SunLife light-weight, who asked if rape should be legalized to "make it safe".

I ask the well-meaning pundits who think pro-choice advocates should welcome the "renewed debate": what do you suggest we do when we run into such intellectual dishonesty and duplicity?

Seriously: What the fuck should we do?

Hey, Boko Haram Is Just Acting on "Conscience Issues" Too

Justin Trudeau's decree that all future (not, note, sitting shoo-in MPs) Liberal candidates must be prochoice has twisted up some Conservative knickers.

Specifically over the matter of sacrosanct "conscience issues."

Here's the At Issue Panel. The abortion discussion starts around the 7:30 mark. Coyne does his thing. Then Chantal rips him a new one, starting around 8:40. Coyne is left blubbering "but not all anti-choicers" bububububub. Mansbridge does his patented mincy mouth. Watch.



Coyne followed this up in the National Post, as did Jen Gerson and today the august NatPo editorial board weighed in. Apart from fetus fetishists, the National Post and these two of its columnists seem to be the only entities in Canada who want to reopen the abortion debate.

Most Canadians are bored to tears by it, but others are mortally offended by the notion that women's rights are mere "conscience issues" for a bunch of boyos to recreate their middle-school debating club over.

This tweet sums it up brilliantly.

Why is your religious belief sacred and inviolable, whereas my bodily autonomy is up for debate all the time? http://t.co/Y1WlFGqtEa — Lauren DH (@roseneath_rd) May 10, 2014

I await the defenders of "conscience issues" and religious beliefs backing of Boko Haram's kidnapping of 300 Nigerian girls. After all, they're just acting out of sincere religious beliefs, right?


UPDATE: Andrew Coyne who thinks its edgy or something to follow me just offered a correction on Twitter. The editorial board of the Toronto Star also takes issue with Trudeau, but does not advocate for the reopening of the abortion debate.

THEM

It's the title of an early Joyce Carol Oates novel, possibly her best and deserving a place in the US literary canon.

_THEM_ depicts the chaotic lives of a family living in poverty in the Detroit slums, from the 1930s to the 1967 riots.  Oates draws a vivid portrait of a matriarch, from self-awakening as a naive young mother nagged by regrets at the age of sixteen, to a mature woman whose aspirations and struggles encompass the destinies of her children battling to survive in a perilous world fraught with violence. Poor white trash folks, before that epithet became a thing.

US against THEM is also a binary construct that imposes constraints and limits possibilities.

This imperative to separate people into opposite camps, assigned to one side or the other of an arbitrarily determined divide, is a facile reflex.  Though some sociobiologists would claim that every human brain is instinctually wired to respond in this manner because: survival strategy! I find their arguments oozing with smarminess and confirmation bias.

This polarizing framework is certainly omnipresent throughout history, across varied and numerous ideological and cultural settings.



Demonize, other-wize, isolate, target. 

Blue dot.

And thus, with regard to this ill-advised model that the Liberal Party of Canada is heavily promoting, today's JT speech announces what awaits Canadians in the 2015 election campaign, if THE MIDDLE-CLASS becomes its strategic meme (though it could morph into a much abused trope).

As someone who grew up in a rough-and-tumble mostly francophone area with many immigrants, working class (and working poor) in a town that's now part of Ottawa, I find this ploy repellent.

Though I may seem to be a member of this elusive and more likely, illusive demographic that the Liberal brain-trust is desperately trying to seduce into its camp, it does NOT speak to me. 

When I hear the expression "upward mobility" deployed in JT's speech as though it were an exalted entitlement, I retch.  Meaningful work, a decent salary, a social safety net: those are important elements that should not be available only to those who buy into the "upward mobility" scam, or more accurately, a form of fancy-schmancy Ponzi economic scheme beatified by the likes of Larry Summers and his sycophants.

I think of my daughter, who by virtue of her hard work and personal sacrifices, is now an accomplished physician who gives back to the communities she has pledged to serve and respect.  I really don't think this marketing gimmick will speak to her.

As I do, she may find it repugnant and exclusionary.

THEM is the group that I historically and emotionally identify with, that demographically disregarded and invalidated class that JT and his team discount when the focus becomes exclusively *THE MIDDLE-CLASS*.

THEM includes many many many people, and not only those who have fallen on hard times. We may not be the potential rich donors the PLC is wooing, but we can smell a deliberate shun.  And when we are angered, we vote.

You can't take that to the bank but you can count on it.

As an aside, is the NDP's best shot at challenging the credibility of JT's speech really this? 

Mulcair's communications flaks would do much better to query how much Summers charged the LPC for his tired dog-and-pony show at the convention.  Was the party billed his preferential Wall Street rate - for "friends"?

Just a hairy guy...

Like this?

A blast from the past.

All three male party leaders in the House of Commons are hairy guys, though Harper's helmet-head looks suspiciously synthetic, like the rest of him.

Once known (also envied and demonized) for his flowing locks, JT has left those behind, on his own counsel or perhaps at the urging of Team Justin.

Merely having a little fun, here.

Will resume serious political blogging soon.

Lawless Abortion Round-Up

Our planned blog-burst/tweet-fest to celebrate 26 years of lawless abortion in Canada got somewhat drowned out yesterday by Bell's cause marketing gimmick to benefit mental health. It's a very clever campaign, but I loathe the practice. (Hm, it seems I blogged about it last year.)

There were some blogs: here, one by deBeauxOs and one by me.

Luna weighed in with a thoughtful post on CONtrol, pointing out what programs actually pro-life people would support.

Kev linked to an older and very succinct post of his. It's so succinct, here it is in its entirety.

#M408 Here we go again

This may be the shortest post I'll ever write. When it comes to a woman's right to choose I am entirely closed minded, there is nothing to debate, no concessions to be made. A women has the inviolable right to choose if and when to have an abortion. I may not agree with her choice but so effin what, it isn't my body it's hers.

Medical Students for Choice posted some links to useful information on the chronology of abortion in Canada and on the current situation on access to it. (Spoiler: not as good as it should be.)

The mainstream media contributed some timely stories. One on the state of play on Health Canada's long overdue decision on RU-486 and another on the political reaction.

Mulcair said the mifepristone application is taking longer than normal.

"I certainly hope that politics is not in play," Mulcair said.

"I know that Madame Ambrose has a history on this particular file, so I hope that her personal opinions are not stopping a health solution for some women who want to have [a medical abortion]."

Justin Trudeau again demonstrated his party's unswerving commitment to namby-pambiness on women's rights.

"I expect that Health Canada will go through the proper procedures, and I'm not a medical expert, so I trust that the scientists will do their work to make sure that it goes through the proper procedures," he said.

Another story reported on a study of the risks posed to women in PEI by the total absence of abortion services there.

On Twitter, people were using the hashtags #Morgentaler26, #RU4Choice, and #LawlessAbortion.

Some trolls came out to play, but not many.

We got a shout-out from Ireland.

Canada has had #LawlessAbortion since 1988. Happy #Morgentaler26

— Abortion Rights IE (@freesafelegal) January 28, 2014

And finally, this surprising development: a crowd-sourcing effort to fund a "dark comedy" about abortion, called "Plan B", being made in Canada.

Here's the trailer.



They want to raise $20,000. Help out if you can. (Imagine the exploding fetus fetishist heads you'd be enabling.)

Thanks to all who blogged, tweeted, and retweeted. If I've missed anything, let me know in the comments.

UPDATE: Alison at Creekside's contribution with cameo appearance from Emma the Embryo.

The Better Catholic

Dean Del Mastro, or as Warren Kinsella styles it, Dean Del Scumbag, the Catholic Pentecostal religion critic for the Contempt Party of Canada, offered an alternative to Justin Trudeau as a more suitable Catholic speaker.

Dean Del Mastro, the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, said on Facebook last month that it was “outrageous” the Catholic school board in Peterborough, Ont. had invited Trudeau to speak for a second time in three years.

“If they are looking for a truly great speaker, who also happens to be Catholic, perhaps they might invite [Immigration] Minister Jason Kenney,” Mr. Del Mastro wrote on Oct. 12. “Are there any tenets of the Catholic faith that Justin supports?”

Hmm. Jason (Promoter of Catholic Sharia Law) Kenney?

Yeah. Him.

Wait for his appearance in this vintage vid from his (USian) Catholic university days.



My co-blogger has a particular, er, interest in Min. Kenney. Search DJ! for her gems on the subject. Here's one of them.

How Low Will They Go?

In today's instalment of 'How Low Can They Go?', we have weeping fetus fetishist Dean Del Mastro calling Justin Trudeau a 'a bad Catholic'. Trudeau is rightly pissed.

Liberal MP Justin Trudeau says he is upset and offended by a Tory MP who publicly questioned his adherence to the Catholic faith and his suitability to speak to students at a Catholic school.

Dean Del Mastro, the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, said on Facebook last month that it was “outrageous” the Catholic school board in Peterborough, Ont. had invited Trudeau to speak for a second time in three years.

And what is really rich is that Del Mastro is not just tasteless, classless, and crass, he's a flaming hypocrite. (Yeah, I know, you're gob-smacked.)

Two years ago, Deanie got smacked down by a top honcho in the Catholic church. Thus:

A Roman Catholic in “good standing” must attend mass every Sunday and holy day of obligation, says the vicar general of the Diocese of Peterborough.

“There is nothing to stop a Catholic person from attending services elsewhere if he or she chooses to do so. However, Catholics are still required to attend Catholic mass every Sunday and holy day of obligation,” said Father Raymond Rick.

“You’re either a Catholic who is practising his faith or you’re not.”

Seems that while Deanie likes to parade his Italian Catholic heritage and play kneesies with Pope Maledict, he's a not very closeted fundy.

Del Mastro told The Examiner he’s been confirmed, and got married, in a Catholic church, but now attends Calvary Pentecostal Church. He said he attends Catholic mass “from time to time.”

“I bear no ill will to anyone at the Catholic Church,” Del Mastro said.

Yeah. Except Justin Trudeau.

Like I said: Asshat.

h/t for old story @CometsMum.

Left Meets Right. Again.

Zow! My Facebook friend Connie really really really doesn't like rookie MP Julian Fantino.

Fantino is a scumbag. I would vote for Pierre Trudeau himself before I would mark an X for that piece of work. Why do the Conservatives think running him is a good plan???

That's some strong language from a so-con.

In related news, Julie comes out from wherever they stashed him during the campaign to whinge.

Mr. Fantino accuses Mr. Trudeau of taking the information out of context, noting that at one time in Ontario more than 40,000 criminal cases were thrown out because of the “justice delayed is justice denied” section of the Charter.

“I mean these are serious, serious issues and I found it quite distressing really that Justin Trudeau would be trotted out to misrepresent what I said and take it out of context. It was an Academy Award performance.”

“You know what, here’s me with 42 years of working night shifts and facing people with loaded guns and dealing with murderers and rapists ... and I get a lecture from a newbie. C’mon.”

As always, pugnacious and WRONG.

Who's the newbie, asshole?

(I guess it's 'Julie, Julie, Julie Day' here at DAMMIT!)

ADDED: It's Fantino Day at Twitter. Somebody started the game 'Julian Fantino is so tough that. . . ' Fun stuff.

uh-oh ... You're in beeeg trouble now, Justin.

Fundamentalist religious zealot laser beams have latched onto Justin Trudeau for expressing his beliefs.

Following in his father's footsteps, Trudeau is an ardent supporter of the homosexual movement. He spoke at the homosexual activist group EGALE's June 5th gala this year. In September, he participated in the Montreal Gay Pride parade, gaining special media attention for his appearance.

Despite the publicity of these stances, his reputation seems to have eluded organizers of Catholic events. Only few months after addressing the gay activist group, Trudeau was a key speaker for the Toronto Catholic District School Board, addressing 4,000 Catholic students. He also addressed Catholic students of the Halton Catholic school board in 2008 at the Notre Dame high school's Leadership Conference.

Covering his 2001 speech for the papal World Youth Day promo, the Toronto Star reported, "Trudeau recounted his struggles with the strict tenets of Catholicism." To youth who were to receive the late John Paul II, Trudeau said he slowly started to rediscover his own religion and said, "Church isn't about rules. It's about guidance." He urged the youth present to reject "old men with old ideas."

LieSiteNews is emitting low-decibel shrieks in his direction, too.

Trudeau, the member of Parliament for the riding of Papineau is pro-choice and supports gay equality rights.

eh. "Church isn't about rules. It's about guidance. [Reject] old men with old ideas."

That should get Blob Blogging Wingnut spitting mad. Well, madder than usual.