Did Targetting Town for Refusing Anti-Choice Ad Result in Defunding Fake Clinic?

Oh, dear. The town of Hinton, Alberta, is having some troubles.

We reported on the funding of its fake clinic, doing business as West YellowHead Pregnancy Care Centre, back in November 2014.

The Hinton fake clinic was getting dough not only from from the Alberta Lottery Fund, but also from the town's photo radar scam, which turns traffic ticket fees into "community grants."

The fake clinic was doing pretty nicely with annual revenues of over $100K, which is not bad considering the population of Hinton is under 10,000. By contrast, the fake clinic in Medicine Hat, with a population six times that of Hinton, scrapes by on about $60K a year.

HInton's fake clinic has received nearly $40K in the last three years from the photo radar scam.

But not this year. They applied for $17K and were turned down (PDF, page 9) in April.

And Hinton has other troubles. Like several other small centres, it is being sued by the fetal gore porn gang, aka Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform (CCBR), over its refusal to run said fetal gore on its buses.

Here's a story mainly about Grande Prairie, AB on the stunt.

A pro-life group is suing the City of Grande Prairie because it feels its rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated.

The story mentions that Hinton is also being targetted by CCBR.

"The city's [Grande Prairie] position on this is that we really don't want to take a position. We don't want to be involved in this debate. We don't think it's appropriate for the city to really take a side," said city lawyer Robert McVey*.

Nope. Nothing to do with us. We're completely neutral on the topic.

Well, maybe Grande Prairie can say that but Hinton's record of handing out significant amounts of dough to a fake clinic says otherwise. Maybe that's why the fetal gore gang picked them out?

Let's look at the dates. In January, the town reported that it is reviewing its transit ad policy (PDF, page 2), citing this as the reason.

The Town is currently being challenged by an outside agency that has had their request to advertise on our transit bus, refused by the Town. Having a policy in place will help to avoid being in a similar situation with other groups in the future.

In April, the town declines the fake clinic's request for dough.

Hmmm. Is it trying to distance itself from its own fetus freaks? Trying to position itself -- like Grande Prairie -- as having no, none, nada, zip dog in this race?

Sadly, the fake clinic seemed to be counting on that dough. It is now downsizing.

The West Yellowhead Pregnancy Care Centre in Hinton is going to look a lot different as of next month.

Starting June 15, the facility will only operate as a satellite centre. According to a press release, there will be one volunteer counsellor at the centre which clients can access by appointment only.

The centre is downsizing due to a “significant decrease in funding and change in client numbers” the press release reads.

Boo-hoo.

But consider: did the fetal gore gang's aggressive move have the unintended consequence of forcing the town to distance itself from the fake clinic, and thus cutting off desperately needed funding?

Rather delicious, isn't it?



* Sidebar for those who are interested in arguments around this so-called free speech issue.

In June, LieShite reported on the situation in Grande Prairie.

In court this week, however, the northern Alberta city’s lawyers argued that the ad constituted “hate propaganda.” Stated the city’s brief: “The ad with its graphic images and strong language effectively equates women who have had abortions with murderers. Such a pointed accusation is not only legally incorrect, it exposes such women to hatred.”

Further into the brief, the city goes further, contending the ad was not intended, as CCBR contended, to educate the public about abortion but “was actually designed to promote hatred against an identifiable class.” The city called the CCBR’s position, based on the use of words such as “slaughter” and “evil” on its website, an “extreme religious” viewpoint.

Hate propaganda. Targetting an identifiable group. What we've been saying.

If you agree and haven't yet, please sign the anti-gore e-petition. It needs only 500 signatures to be presented to Parliament and now stands at 3872, but more would be better. We blogged about the petition here.

h/t to Kathy Dawson, (@blueskies366) for critical links. Also eagle eye. :)

Free Speech, Fetus Fetishist Style

A lot is at stake today in the US as its Supreme Court considers buffer zones around abortion clinics.

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear a challenge to a law that protects women seeking reproductive-health care in Massachusetts - including checkups, birth control, and abortion care - from enduring violence, and harassment by anti-choice protesters outside of reproductive-health clinics.

Massachusetts has a 35-foot buffer zone (the distance of two parking spaces) that blocks anti-choice protesters from approaching women accessing health care. But anti-choice forces are fighting the buffer zone so that they can get even closer when shaming and harassing women entering these clinics.

See, it's a free speechy thing.

Here are some glimpses into what is considered "free speech" by USian fetus fetishists.

MA Buffer Zone Law from NARAL Pro-Choice America

And of course, there's this sublime expression of "sidewalk counselling".



Here's Robin Marty:

Ultimately, if the Supreme Court strikes down the buffer zone in McCullen v. Coakley, every clinic sidewalk could potentially turn into the sidewalk in Louisville [described in the piece], where anti-abortion protesters can openly chase clinic patients, “exorcise” escorts, and block doors — not with the metal or even human chains they used in the nineties, but with the emotional force of 100 bodies lining the street, shouting that you are a murderer.

That type of “freedom of speech” won’t just be condoned; it will be actively encouraged at every clinic in every state in the country. The freedom to determine if you choose to carry a pregnancy to term, however? That could become a thing of the past.

We here at DJ! keep an eye on what's happening down south. Because we have these dangerous nutters here too.

I believe that our USian cousins dropped the ball on abortion with the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. They thought they'd won.

We in Canada had to keep fighting until 1988, all the while watching the violence and backlash in the States. Pro-choice USians have been on defence ever since 1973.

But now some good news. They plan to play offense in 2014.

States may have become the laboratory for advancing an anti-choice agenda, but [NARAL president Ilyse] Hogue said they also present the best opportunity for turning the tide. Although NARAL has yet to identify specific races to target Hogue expects to mount a full political program including media and field campaigns in as many as half a dozen states, and to be involved in dozens of others. Exposing anti-choice incumbents who try to repackage themselves in light of the GOP’s efforts to rebrand itself more women-friendly will likely be a key strategy. Nineteen anti-choice governors are up for re-election, including Sam Brownback.

In Canada, we've never stopped playing offense.

A Coup for Parliament or a Recruiting Tool for CHP

As we know, Warwara's Wank ended with a further wank, this one about Free Speech.

The long-awaited Speaker's decision on his point of privilege over having his member's statement (S.O.30) snuffed by the CON Whip was announced yesterday at around 3 p.m.

Here's Kady O'Malley's story filed at 4:57 p.m.

If backbench MPs want to the right to speak freely in the House, they're going to have to start standing up to be counted -- even if it means ignoring the speaking lists prepared by the party whip to compete against their caucus colleagues for the attention of the speaker. 

That, it seems, is the gist of House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer's much-anticipated ruling on the point of privilege raised by Conservative MP Mark Warawa after his pre-Question Period speaking slot was abruptly yanked by his party's whip due to his choice of subject -- specifically, his similarly scuttled attempt to bring a non-binding motion to condemn sex-selective abortion before the House.

Although he ultimately found that no prima facie breach of privilege had occurred, Scheer made it clear that, as far as he and his predecessors are concerned, the speaker has never ceded the right to choose which member should be recognized -- not just during the fifteen minute block designated for members' statements, but, in theory, during QP as well. He just hasn't yet been put in a position where he would have to do so, as -- again, at least as yet --  no members have ever attempted to circumvent the whip-created list.

So, fans of the Westminster parliamentary system parsed that all to hell, gleefully anticipating little bobble-heads bobbing up and down trying to catch the eye of the venerable 33-year-old Speaker.

The more cynical of course wondered just how much eye-catching Opposition members might have to mount. Clown-costumes wouldn't be out of place, after all.

Other cynics wondered if this really meant anything at all.

Funny, though, not much attention at all was paid to this story filed by John Ivison at 11:13 yesterday morning, about 4 hours before the decision.

John Ivison: Ruling on alleged breach of Warawa’s privilege to speak freely could head off Tory rebellion

But there are rumblings in caucus that Mr. Scheer may make a significant additional ruling by pointing to the Westminster example, where it is a long established convention that the Speaker has the right to recognize members from either side of the House when they stand during Question Time. In the British House of Commons, a number of MPs bob up and down at any given time, trying to catch the Speaker’s eye, and it is up to the chair to recognize them. The inference would be that if more than one MP stands up during members’ statements and Question Period, they could be recognized by the Speaker, whether they are on the whips’ list or not.

If Mr. Scheer leans towards the Westminster model, it could have profound implications in both the short and long term governance of the House. It would also suggest he will not find Mr. Warawa’s privilege was breached, since he could have been recognized by the speaker if he’d only stood up to speak at members’ statements.

In the short-term, it could head off a rebellion in the Conservative caucus that threatens to culminate in some Tories voting alongside the Liberals. New Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has introduced a motion to allocate members’ statements in alphabetical order which will reach the House on Wednesday and, absent some kind of significant reform, a number of Tory MPs may be tempted to signal their displeasure.

So, at least four hours in advance, senator-in-waiting Ivison was tipped to the outcome.

And indeed, the Speaker's ruling does have the salubrious effect of quelling the now pretty-well defunct Backbenchers Spring.

As the Church Lady would say: How conveeeenient.

Political shenangigans in the Speaker's Office!?!1???

Say it ain't so.

Now of course the question is which of the intrepid backbenchers will get up on their hind legs and attempt to speak to an unapproved topic -- like abortion, for example?

@fernhilldammit It's actually pretty close in structure to the UK model. We'll see if he actually sticks to it.

— E (@freezingkiwi) April 23, 2013

(I've bet @freezingkiwi that his kiwis will really freeze before that happens.)

Will only the nutbars avail themselves of this privilege ignominious display? Will more sensible, team-playing BBers keep shtum and/or clap their flippers as they read the usual 'job-killing carbon tax' talking points ad nauseum?

I wondered if Speaker Scheer had offered any protection -- kinda like whistle-blower protection -- for retribution from vengeful whips and leaders.

According to Mark Jarvis, author of Democratizing the Constitution:

@fernhilldammit @thomashall17 nothing.

— mark d. jarvis (@markdjarvis) April 24, 2013

Retired House of Commons procedural clerk, Thomas Hall, went further.

@fernhilldammit @markdjarvis Yep!The pwr to sign nomination papers needs to be removed from party leaders and returned to riding assocs.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 24, 2013

It's down to party constitutions. And ipso fatso, only future Christian Heritage Party candidates will partake.

ADDED: For all of you breathless with anticipation as to what Free Speech Warrior and Defender of Girls, Mark Warawa, would say in his totally unfettered S.O. 31 today -- behold! (I swear you can't make this shit up.)

UPDATE (April 26/13): How successful was Speaker Scheer in quelling the Backbench Revolt? Perfectly. Not one BBer voted for the Liberal motion to choose MPs to make member's statements by alphabetical order.

M408 is NOT a Free Speech Hill to Die On

As regular readers here know, we don't give a flying fuck about whether Warawa's Wank is voteable or not. As long as it's got the CONtard knickers in knots, it's all good with us.

But for interested parties, there was this today on Twitter.

WARNING: My next series of tweets will deal w/ Mark Warawa's motion & his so-called qstn of priv. & why journos & pundits are overreacting.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

That would be Thomas Hall who describes himself as 'retired House of Commons procedural clerk, Constitution nerd, and word nut dans les deux langues officielles'.

He made good on his threat with a series of tweets.

Warawa's motion on sex-selective abortion will get 1 hour of debate in HoC. So he does get to speak on it despite what some have said.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

Having private mbrs' motions voted on at all is releatively new, so there was no *right* for MPs to move motions & force vote in HoC.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

Journos like A. Coyne who said that Warawa's motion was clearly in order to be votable are wrong. W/ respect to Lib of Parl analyst who...

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

...advised Subcmtee of MPs who decide on votability, the analyst gave wrong advice. Motion violated criterion no. 1. Subcmtee had equal ...

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

...representation from each party & worked by consensus. No way PMO cld have made Subcmtee decide motion non-votable.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

PMO *may* have influenced full cmtee on Procedure to reject Warawa's appeal of Subcmtee decision since majority on cmtee are Conservatives.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

More likely is that majority on cmtee just didn't want to deal w/ abortion in any shape or form--policy for all 3 parties!

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

Now regardg Warawa's qstn of privilege, complaint, that he didn't get to make statement in HoC during Mbrs' Statemts. I think parties ...

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

...shldn't try to control what their mbrs say during that period, but ppl overreacted to O'Connor, CPC whip, comparing HoC to hockey game.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

Frankly, not being allowed 2 speak during Mbrs' Statemts trivial compared to other control of party mbrs. No MP has right to make statmt.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

@emmmacfarlane No MP has right to make a statemt b/c there's no not enough time allowed for it. Never has been. So selection has to be made.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

Then Emmett MacFarlane got into it to disagree with Hall.

@emmmacfarlane W/ respect, you're confusing Private Mbrs Business w/ Govt Business. Under latter, HoC can express opinion on all kinds...

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

Hall provided a link to the records of the subcommittee meeting. Scroll down.

@emmmacfarlane See parl.gc.ca/HousePublicati…

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 3, 2013

In short, in the opinion of the retired House of Commons procedural clerk, the subcommittee was correct and Warawa and Coyne and MacFarlane are all just wanking.

Others are weighing in too. As deBeauxOs blogged earlier today, some are taking issue with the newly minted free-speech spin.

And here's another.

Warawa's Wank is about abortion. It is sexist and racist.

It is about targetting pregnant women from 'certain' communities and vilifying them for allowing themselves to be 'coerced' into abortion.

it is NOT about free speech.

Free Speech has Nothing - Nothing! - to do with it.

Our gutless band of tighty-righties seems to think the cancelation of Ann Coulter’s stand-up gig at the University of Ottawa last March had something to do with Free Speech. It does not. It has to do with the Conservative Student Club's incompetence in organizing a bit of neo-con agitprop promoted by Ezra Levant and supported by the usual suspects.

The University of Ottawa had nothing to gain and a great deal to lose by being seen to agree with the malevolent fabrications - and hateful claims, as defined in Canada - of a provocatrice/performance/con artist marketed under the guise of a legitimate speaker for conservatism.

Ann Coulter remains available to speak (not free, though I doubt that she commands the same 6-figure fees that Sarah Palin does) and, as individuals, people (even those associated with the University of Ottawa) remain free to hear her - if you belong to the right groups. But there are no circumstances in which the University of Ottawa in an official capacity could have anything whatsoever to do with Ann Coulter or the hate speech she expresses, or the views she promotes.

Un grand merci to Jay Currie who provided the template for this post.

Why does Coulter dress like a skank?

It's okay to look like a skank if the other part of your act is to trumpet your fundamentalist rightwing Christian creds, declaring that Jews need to be perfected.

That's how a performance artist like Ann Coulter can afford an apartment in Manhattan and a house in Palm Beach. Though she's probably not getting the big munnee - $250K per public appearance that Sarah Palin demands.

She could crank up her wardrobe by selecting this brassiere style, popular in Joe McCarthy's time.

Why is Coulter doing a lecture tour in Canada, anyway? Has her stand-up routine become passé in the US? Are Teabaggers Tea Party Patriots not offering her gigs?

It's ironic the US neocon palate for vile trash talk that Coulter cultivated has shifted even further right and left her in the dust, opting for the batshit crazy ranting of someone like Representative Michelle Bachman instead.

Oh, and go read what Dr Dawg says about Coulter and her supporters' success in spinning a mild letter from a university official into yet another purported censorship VS free speech confrontation. Is it kosher to mention Ezra Levant's involvement in this attention-mongering circus?

ADDED by fh: Cancelled skank.

Darwin biopic "Creation" will not be shown in the US?

Creation, the movie that opened the Toronto International Film Festival was originally developed by the BBC and UK films council. So far, not even one US film distribution company has shown an interest in showing the production in that country. From here:

Creation, starring Paul Bettany, details Darwin's "struggle between faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-year-old daughter, Annie. ...

It has been sold in almost every territory around the world, from Australia to Scandinavia. However, US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution. ...

The film has sparked fierce debate on US Christian websites, with a typical comment dismissing evolution as "a silly theory with a serious lack of evidence to support it despite over a century of trying".

Jeremy Thomas, the Oscar-winning producer of Creation, said he was astonished that such attitudes exist 150 years after 'On The Origin of Species' was published. "That's what we're up against. In 2009. It's amazing," he said.

Aren't those quaint 'Murricans and their "free speech for me but not for you" notions just too amusing?

Yo! Free Speechers!

Liberty U. pulls plug on campus Democratic club.

Liberty University, the university founded by the late Christian evangelist Rev. Jerry Falwell, has revoked its recognition of the campus Democratic Party club, saying “we are unable to lend support to a club whose parent organization stands against the moral principles held by” the university, The News & Advance, of Lynchburg, Va., reports.

“It kind of happened out of nowhere,” said Brian Diaz, president of the student Democratic Party organization that the school had formally recognized in October.

Diaz, the paper reports, said he got the news May 15 in an e-mail from Mark Hine, vice president of student affairs.

According to the e-mail, the club must stop using the university’s name, holding meetings on campus, or advertising events, the newspaper reports.

Hine said late Thursday that the university could not sanction an official club that supported Democratic candidates, the newspaper reports, but stresses that "we are in no way attempting to stifle free speech.”

I thought it was only us commies who stifled free speech.

UPPITY-DATE: From the Washington Post:

Text of E-Mail From Liberty University Revoking Recognition and Access for College Democrats

From: Hine, Mark (VP Student Affairs)
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 1:37 PM
Subject: LU College Democrats

I must inform you that the College democrats' club is no longer going to be recognized as a Liberty University club. We are unable to lend support to a club whose parent organization stands against the moral principles held by Liberty University. I expressed these concerns when we met, earlier in the spring semester.

The Liberty Way states, "It is the duty of every student to respect Liberty's Statement of Doctrine and Purpose. They may not engage in any activity on or off campus that would compromise the testimony or reputation of the University or cause disruption to Liberty's Christian learning environment."

The Liberty University School of Law had been working on a policy to govern their clubs and organizations for quite some time. They have now completed that policy and we have adopted it for Liberty University as well. Now that it has been adopted and will apply to all clubs and organizations, it is clear that this club does not comply.
ad_icon

Below is a copy of the policy which governs clubs and organizations at Liberty University. This policy is posted on the website.

STUDENT CLUBS AND ORGANIZATIONS POLICIES

Student clubs or organizations must request and receive permission from the Liberty University administration before they may meet on campus, advertise, distribute or post materials, or use any University facilities for their activities or events. All such clubs or organizations and their activities or events must be consistent with the University's mission, and must be and remain in compliance with the Liberty Way, the Honor Code, and any policies or procedures promulgated by the University. The University reserves the right to refuse the use of its facilities for any reason to any student club, organization, activity or event.

Consistent with the Honor Code, all students, student clubs and organizations, faculty and staff of Liberty University, have a responsibility to uphold the moral and ethical standards of this institution and personally confront those who do not.

No student club or organization shall be approved, recognized or permitted to meet on campus, advertise, distribute or post materials, or use University facilities if the statements, positions, doctrines, policies, constitutions, bylaws, platforms, activities or events of such club or organization, its parent, affiliate, chapter or similarly named group (even if the similarly named group is not the actual parent, affiliate or chapter) are inconsistent or in conflict with the distinctly Christian mission of the University, the Liberty Way, the Honor Code, or the policies and procedures promulgated by the University.

Even though this club may not support the more radical planks of the democratic party, the democratic party is still the parent organization of the club on campus. The Democratic Party Platform is contrary to the mission of LU and to Christian doctrine (supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the "LGBT" agenda, Hate Crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc). The candidates this club supports uphold the Platform and implement it. The candidates supported are directly contrary to the mission of LU. By using LU or Liberty University and Democrat in the name, the two are associated and the goals of both run in opposite directions.

We are removing the club from the Liberty website and you will need to cease using Liberty University's name, including any logo, seal or mark of Liberty University. They are not to be used in any of your publications, electronic or internet, including but not limited to, any website, Facebook, Twitter or any other such publication.

If you have questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Mark Hine
VP for Student Affairs
Liberty University

Hee. 'Radical planks'.