h/t
Showing posts with label Lifesite. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lifesite. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Pray For Him
Even though LifeSiteNews reports have overwhelmingly reported on what Fr. [Raymond] Gravel himself has publicly said, he is suing us for libel.
h/t
h/t
Monday, March 29, 2010
Harper, Abortion, And The Tory Base
Keith Martin has some (unusual for him) wise words:
With respect to the thorny issue of abortion, Mr. Harper should embrace the standard medical position championed by the World Health Organization, the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health, and indeed previous Liberal and Conservative governments. This position is to support women’s access to safe abortions in those countries where it is legal. Many members of the Conservative government may have their own personal opposition to abortion, and this must be respected. However, they do not have the right to force their views on others when it runs counter to the prevailing scientific consensus. “Not opening the abortion debate” means respecting the status quo, which has been our nation’s position for many years. If the government claims to be pro-life, certainly they would want to reduce the current toll of 63,000 women a year who perish as a complication of a botched abortion and the hundreds of thousands of children who die as a consequence of their mother’s passing. Furthermore, how can our government actively deprive women from the poorest countries in the world of the same rights and access to medical procedures that women have in Canada?
In this next bit, Martin describes Harper's "out" over the abortion issue:
Mr. Harper can square his opposition to abortion while implementing an effective plan to reduce maternal and childhood mortality by proposing that each G8 country take the lead in one of the inputs required to address this tragic situation. For example, Canada could be the lead nation on training healthcare workers and micronutrients, another country could focus on providing medications, another on access to family planning and safe abortions, etc. In this way, a comprehensive plan that focuses on enabling the world’s poorest to access basic primary care services can be implemented, with the G8 countries dividing responsibilities and target resources.
This was the same means by which the 2nd Bush administration finessed the problem: who funds what would be re-shuffled so that Canada would not be paying for overseas abortions--another country willing to cut the cheques would do that. On the other hand, no policy change necessitated by any defunding would be required, because the overall funding levels would remain as they were.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is not the route eventually taken.
Lets see how it plays on Lifesite.
With respect to the thorny issue of abortion, Mr. Harper should embrace the standard medical position championed by the World Health Organization, the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health, and indeed previous Liberal and Conservative governments. This position is to support women’s access to safe abortions in those countries where it is legal. Many members of the Conservative government may have their own personal opposition to abortion, and this must be respected. However, they do not have the right to force their views on others when it runs counter to the prevailing scientific consensus. “Not opening the abortion debate” means respecting the status quo, which has been our nation’s position for many years. If the government claims to be pro-life, certainly they would want to reduce the current toll of 63,000 women a year who perish as a complication of a botched abortion and the hundreds of thousands of children who die as a consequence of their mother’s passing. Furthermore, how can our government actively deprive women from the poorest countries in the world of the same rights and access to medical procedures that women have in Canada?
In this next bit, Martin describes Harper's "out" over the abortion issue:
Mr. Harper can square his opposition to abortion while implementing an effective plan to reduce maternal and childhood mortality by proposing that each G8 country take the lead in one of the inputs required to address this tragic situation. For example, Canada could be the lead nation on training healthcare workers and micronutrients, another country could focus on providing medications, another on access to family planning and safe abortions, etc. In this way, a comprehensive plan that focuses on enabling the world’s poorest to access basic primary care services can be implemented, with the G8 countries dividing responsibilities and target resources.
This was the same means by which the 2nd Bush administration finessed the problem: who funds what would be re-shuffled so that Canada would not be paying for overseas abortions--another country willing to cut the cheques would do that. On the other hand, no policy change necessitated by any defunding would be required, because the overall funding levels would remain as they were.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is not the route eventually taken.
Lets see how it plays on Lifesite.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Criticize LifesiteNews -> Death Threats
TORONTO - Salt+Light Television CEO Fr. Tom Rosica has reacted to daily threats against his life, reputation and ministry, blaming LifeSiteNews for stirring up “division, destruction, hatred, vitriol, judgment and violence.”
Rosica said his office phone messages have included threats and violent language. He called them “vile, vile phone calls.”
If you are wondering about what prompted all this, apparently Fr. Rosica refused to instigate a protest down in Boston at the funeral of Ted Kennedy:
Prior to the funeral, we received numerous calls from a pocket of people who claim to be pro-life, some of them acting in good faith, but uninformed faith, and they asked us to invite or incite a protest at the Chancery of Boston so that the Cardinal would not proceed with the funeral. These same voices are the ones who are contacting us, in Canada, asking us to incite people to stir up the pot in the United States - which doesn’t need any stirring up, it is already stirred up.
Especially interesting bit from the Catholic Register article:
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has scheduled a closed-door session on independent blogs and web sites claiming to be Catholic at its October plenary. Rosica said he also hopes the Pontifical Council on Social Communication takes up the issue.
Sounds like they want to lasso their whackjobs before anything crazy happens. You listening, Flanders?
Rosica said his office phone messages have included threats and violent language. He called them “vile, vile phone calls.”
If you are wondering about what prompted all this, apparently Fr. Rosica refused to instigate a protest down in Boston at the funeral of Ted Kennedy:
Prior to the funeral, we received numerous calls from a pocket of people who claim to be pro-life, some of them acting in good faith, but uninformed faith, and they asked us to invite or incite a protest at the Chancery of Boston so that the Cardinal would not proceed with the funeral. These same voices are the ones who are contacting us, in Canada, asking us to incite people to stir up the pot in the United States - which doesn’t need any stirring up, it is already stirred up.
Especially interesting bit from the Catholic Register article:
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has scheduled a closed-door session on independent blogs and web sites claiming to be Catholic at its October plenary. Rosica said he also hopes the Pontifical Council on Social Communication takes up the issue.
Sounds like they want to lasso their whackjobs before anything crazy happens. You listening, Flanders?
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
LifeSiteNews Trashed: Catholic On Catholic Violence!
Meet Fr. Tom Rosica's:
"We have an agency in Canada functioning called LifeSite. It purports itself to be a news service for the areas and issues of life. I will say very publicly to those listening - it is not credible, it does not speak for the Church, it is not ethical, it is not honest."
"I encourage people to know that this is not an authentic instrument at the service of unity and at the service of the Church. It is causing division."
"For the one-tenth of kernel of truth that they purport to uncover (and there is truth in what they do) nine-tenths is exaggeration. It is bombastic, it is derisive and it is divisive."
"I think we have to be very clear and say that part of the work of Satan is to divide - to pit people against each other and they are succeeding quite well."
I am so glad someone within The Church has summoned up the Nads to take a swing at these people. They don't seem to understand anything but rhetorical overkill.
Anyway, here's Gruending's angle on Lifesite, from back in July.
"We have an agency in Canada functioning called LifeSite. It purports itself to be a news service for the areas and issues of life. I will say very publicly to those listening - it is not credible, it does not speak for the Church, it is not ethical, it is not honest."
"I encourage people to know that this is not an authentic instrument at the service of unity and at the service of the Church. It is causing division."
"For the one-tenth of kernel of truth that they purport to uncover (and there is truth in what they do) nine-tenths is exaggeration. It is bombastic, it is derisive and it is divisive."
"I think we have to be very clear and say that part of the work of Satan is to divide - to pit people against each other and they are succeeding quite well."
I am so glad someone within The Church has summoned up the Nads to take a swing at these people. They don't seem to understand anything but rhetorical overkill.
Anyway, here's Gruending's angle on Lifesite, from back in July.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
More Dennis Gruending On Lifesite
The controversy may appear to be an internal Catholic matter (it has received virtually no coverage in the mainstream media) but it has broader implications. The nature of Lifesite’s attacks could well hamper the way in which D&P [Development and Peace] conducts is development work in poor countries. Lifesite insists that agencies described as Catholic should be prohibited from being involved in projects related to family planning of any kind, including contraception – and that Catholic groups be prohibited from associating with other organizations who are so involved. Such a policy, if enacted, would prevent Catholic groups from working for justice in many circumstances. This would be a victory for the Catholic right and would signal a return to a form of triumphalism that was supposedly discarded by Vatican II in the 1960s. Accepting this protocol would also set back the cause of women’s rights by decades and place Catholic organizations in the company of some of the world’s most religiously fundamentalist regimes.
Gruending's usual good read.
Gruending's usual good read.
Friday, June 26, 2009
All You Ever Wanted To Know About Lifesite
...can be found right here in Dennis Gruending's latest. Concentrating mostly on the "scandal" surrounding The Canadian Catholic aid agency Development and Peace (D&P), which I admit to not having followed closely, the piece has all kinds of interesting background on everyone's favorite militant Catholic website: the Campaign Life Coalition, as does Alphonse de Valk of the notorious Catholic Insight magazine.
Best one-line characterization of Lifesite I've read: One might describe such a mindset as that of a Catholic Taliban.
Best one-line characterization of Lifesite I've read: One might describe such a mindset as that of a Catholic Taliban.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
LifeSiteNews Going Under?
Dear LifeSiteNews Readers,
On December 10 we reported our disappointment that only 170 readers had sent in a donation since our Christmas fundraising campaign began on December 5th. [Remembering that we have just topped a million page views a month...HW] The total then was $7005, enough to run LifeSiteNews for about 5 days.
Thankfully, 650 generous readers have now taken the step to partner with LifeSiteNews with a gift. The total for this campaign has reached $37,298. That's still far from where we need to be and represents gifts from only a small fraction of our readership, but it is a significant improvement over the Dec. 10 results.
88 readers contributed $5 and the rest contributed a wide range of different amounts. Every one of these has been greatly appreciated.
We are surprised however, at the continued reluctance of most of our regular readers, which number in the many tens of thousands. Is $5 too much to ask for a year's worth of original, principled reporting on the issues that matter most?
Please consider taking a few moments to respond to LSN's Christmas 2008 appeal with a donation of just $5. Of course, if you can give more than that, we welcome and need such generous gifts as well.
Since this desperate plea was published, the folks at Lifesite have added roughly another $12,000. However, that still leaves them about $100,000 short of where they need to be.
I've been thinking of throwing them a few bucks myself. After all, if these guys weren't around to ridicule, half the progressive blogosphere would disappear in their wake.
But then I saw that baby-blue hoody with Bob Marley on the front and I realized that I hadn't bought myself enough Xmas presents yet.
On December 10 we reported our disappointment that only 170 readers had sent in a donation since our Christmas fundraising campaign began on December 5th. [Remembering that we have just topped a million page views a month...HW] The total then was $7005, enough to run LifeSiteNews for about 5 days.
Thankfully, 650 generous readers have now taken the step to partner with LifeSiteNews with a gift. The total for this campaign has reached $37,298. That's still far from where we need to be and represents gifts from only a small fraction of our readership, but it is a significant improvement over the Dec. 10 results.
88 readers contributed $5 and the rest contributed a wide range of different amounts. Every one of these has been greatly appreciated.
We are surprised however, at the continued reluctance of most of our regular readers, which number in the many tens of thousands. Is $5 too much to ask for a year's worth of original, principled reporting on the issues that matter most?
Please consider taking a few moments to respond to LSN's Christmas 2008 appeal with a donation of just $5. Of course, if you can give more than that, we welcome and need such generous gifts as well.
Since this desperate plea was published, the folks at Lifesite have added roughly another $12,000. However, that still leaves them about $100,000 short of where they need to be.
I've been thinking of throwing them a few bucks myself. After all, if these guys weren't around to ridicule, half the progressive blogosphere would disappear in their wake.
But then I saw that baby-blue hoody with Bob Marley on the front and I realized that I hadn't bought myself enough Xmas presents yet.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Anti-Morgentaler Poll Done By Tory Operative, or : What The Hippie Hath Found
On July 22nd, the headline appears on Lifesitenews: Massive New Poll: 56% of Canadians Oppose Morgentaler Order of Canada. The poll, commissioned by the Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), gets very little play in the MSM, but JJ and the gang at Unrepentant Old Hippy become a little bit curious, as do some of the players at FreeDominion. Their big question: who the hell are KLRVU polling, the company that conducted the CLC poll?
They appear to have neither a phone number or a website. However, their news release on the poll gives some interesting details. Run that phone number through a few search engines and you get these guys: LaserCut Designs... a Laser Shop for Unique and Special Gifts for Companies and All Occasions.
They appear to have neither a phone number or a website. However, their news release on the poll gives some interesting details. Run that phone number through a few search engines and you get these guys: LaserCut Designs... a Laser Shop for Unique and Special Gifts for Companies and All Occasions. Now, pause for a moment: a Laser shop that polls for the CLC? A polling company that makes corporate gifts for all occasions? Those are the folks behind the Anti-Morgentaler poll.
But wait, there's more! Another website for LaserCut Designs is Laserengraving.ca, which mentions the names of artists involved: Allan and Katherine. Who are they? Well, this notice of a school fund-raiser identifies Katherine as Katherine Bruinooge. She is married to Allan Bruinooge, who ran for Winnipeg City Council in 2005. A Winnipeg Free Press story from that time period describes him thusly:
Finally, if the name Bruinooge strikes you as familiar, its because Allan's brother is Rod Bruinooge, Tory MP from Winnipeg South and a staunch pro-lifer who has written that:
What I find myself questioning is whether Rod Bruinooge knew of the anti-Morgentaler "Laser Poll", and whether any CPoC or taxpayers money went into the funding of it. Hopefully, the MSM will start asking similar questions.
h/t JJ and gang, who did all the work.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Finally, (Relatively) Straight Talk On Bill C-484
Although we are still talking National Post blog-space, not the body of the main newspaper. So I'm not sure whether this counts as MSM coverage or not. My favorite bit:
Ms. Fortin repeats the word “fetus” numerous times and claims that Bill C-484 “does not in any way confer personhood or rights upon the fetus.” That is false. The bill never even uses the word fetus! Instead, “child” and “unborn child” are used to refer to even very early pregnancies, as soon as the woman suspects she might be pregnant. This is an unprecedented extension of such language in the Criminal Code and clearly, it confers personhood on the fetus. The bill makes the penalty for killing a fetus the same as for homicide, and includes it as an offence “Against the Person and Reputation” (even though that part of the code already defines fetuses as non-persons). Just by making it a separate crime to kill or injure an “unborn child,” the bill creates at least some degree of fetal personhood.
This part I wonder about, however:
The bill’s proponents, including Ms. Fortin, are fond of citing a survey from last October that found 72% of Canadians support a bill like C-484. What they never say is that the poll was commissioned by anti-abortion group LifeCanada to measure “Canadians’ attitudes towards abortion issues.” The poll’s question on a fetal homicide law was grouped with other questions on abortion restrictions, with biased wording to elicit a positive answer.
Given the source, the Lifesite poll was almost certainly biased in the manner noted. However, an Angus Reid survey conducted just last month month gave very similar results:
In the online survey of a representative national sample, 70 per cent of respondents support the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, while 19 per cent express opposition.
See full release here.
I am still of the opinion that the Tories made some clever tactical moves on C-484 by insisting loudly (though disingenuously) that it was not about abortion, and by making their vehicle a private member's bill. This way Stephen Harper can step back and say, "Look! Abortion has been regulated, but it isn't my fault!"
(Finally, I'm not really sure who the author of the Natty Post essay is. It looks as though Marni Soupcoff has allowed Joyce Arthur some blog space).
Update: Fern Hill analysed the Angus Reid Poll a couple of weeks ago and found it wanting.
Update: Joyce Arthur responds in the comments:
The National Post piece is by me, Joyce Arthur. They sent me a version yesterday to edit, but didn't bother waiting for my response, even though I sent an updated version later the same day.
Because of the newer Angus Reid poll that came out since I submitted the piece to the Post over THREE weeks ago, I had added the following sentence to the paragraph about the polls, which didn't make it in:
"Polling results on this issue are also misleading because the public is not generally aware of the risks the bill poses to women's rights."
The point being, this is a complex issue. The Angus Reid poll made no attempt to explain the problems with the bill, which are not going to be readily apparent to the average Joe and Jane. Everybody of course wants to protect pregnant women, but most will not realize what a Trojan Horse this bill is. Unfortunately, the majority public support for this bill is a red herring, at least for now.
Ms. Fortin repeats the word “fetus” numerous times and claims that Bill C-484 “does not in any way confer personhood or rights upon the fetus.” That is false. The bill never even uses the word fetus! Instead, “child” and “unborn child” are used to refer to even very early pregnancies, as soon as the woman suspects she might be pregnant. This is an unprecedented extension of such language in the Criminal Code and clearly, it confers personhood on the fetus. The bill makes the penalty for killing a fetus the same as for homicide, and includes it as an offence “Against the Person and Reputation” (even though that part of the code already defines fetuses as non-persons). Just by making it a separate crime to kill or injure an “unborn child,” the bill creates at least some degree of fetal personhood.
This part I wonder about, however:
The bill’s proponents, including Ms. Fortin, are fond of citing a survey from last October that found 72% of Canadians support a bill like C-484. What they never say is that the poll was commissioned by anti-abortion group LifeCanada to measure “Canadians’ attitudes towards abortion issues.” The poll’s question on a fetal homicide law was grouped with other questions on abortion restrictions, with biased wording to elicit a positive answer.
Given the source, the Lifesite poll was almost certainly biased in the manner noted. However, an Angus Reid survey conducted just last month month gave very similar results:
In the online survey of a representative national sample, 70 per cent of respondents support the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, while 19 per cent express opposition.
See full release here.
I am still of the opinion that the Tories made some clever tactical moves on C-484 by insisting loudly (though disingenuously) that it was not about abortion, and by making their vehicle a private member's bill. This way Stephen Harper can step back and say, "Look! Abortion has been regulated, but it isn't my fault!"
(Finally, I'm not really sure who the author of the Natty Post essay is. It looks as though Marni Soupcoff has allowed Joyce Arthur some blog space).
Update: Fern Hill analysed the Angus Reid Poll a couple of weeks ago and found it wanting.
Update: Joyce Arthur responds in the comments:
The National Post piece is by me, Joyce Arthur. They sent me a version yesterday to edit, but didn't bother waiting for my response, even though I sent an updated version later the same day.
Because of the newer Angus Reid poll that came out since I submitted the piece to the Post over THREE weeks ago, I had added the following sentence to the paragraph about the polls, which didn't make it in:
"Polling results on this issue are also misleading because the public is not generally aware of the risks the bill poses to women's rights."
The point being, this is a complex issue. The Angus Reid poll made no attempt to explain the problems with the bill, which are not going to be readily apparent to the average Joe and Jane. Everybody of course wants to protect pregnant women, but most will not realize what a Trojan Horse this bill is. Unfortunately, the majority public support for this bill is a red herring, at least for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)