But those who fail to find me harm themselves; all who hate me love death.”
October 27, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — When the command to legalize euthanasia came down from the Canadian Supreme Court, suicide activists were ecstatic. At long last, they said, people suffering horribly would have the opportunity to “die with dignity” — that is, kill themselves. Not only that, they could kill themselves with the help of a physician, and the whole thing would be funded by the government. It was Progress, we were told. The recently-discovered yet unalienable right not to exist anymore was finally being respected by the courts.
But of course, the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide for those nearing the end of their lives — or at least those whose deaths could be “reasonably foreseen,” which permitted the Orwellian activists to label lethal injections and suicide assistance as “end of life care — was not nearly enough. This is despite the fact that the number of people who have decided to avail themselves of this service is staggeringly high: 1,982 deaths between June 17, 2016 and June 30, 2017.
It is not surprising that suicide is becoming more common than anyone expected. One Canadian judge has already indicated that a patient need not be terminal in order to qualify for killing — and one euthanized woman may have only had a bladder infection. There have been other suspect killings, as well. One disabled woman was even pressured to accept euthanasia. No one talks about them much, of course. Collateral damage is an expected side effect of euthanasia regimes. There will be many, many more in the years to come.
There are other problems, too. Christian physicians are being forced to defend their right not to participate in these suicides in court, with suicide activists seemingly determined to ensure that the healthy consciences of dissenting doctors are the first casualty of their new euthanasia regime. Other doctors are realizing that killing a person is far more difficult than they thought it would be — so difficult that many have requested that their names be removed from the list of physicians willing eliminate patients via “end of life care.”
Worst of all, this week the discussion about extending “suicide rights” to children resurfaced in an article in the Globe and Mail:
A Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program (CPSP) survey, released Thursday, shows the frequency with which pediatricians are having exploratory conversations about, or fielding explicit requests for, medical assistance in dying (MAID). The findings could inform changes to federal legislation, and underscore the tension between an individual’s right to autonomy and society’s responsibility to protect the most vulnerable.
Of the 1,050 pediatricians who participated in the survey, 118 said that over the course of a year, they had MAID-related discussions with a total of 419 parents; most of the minors in question were children under the age of 13. When it came to explicit MAID requests, 45 doctors said they dealt with a total of 91 parents. Nearly half of the requests related to infants less than one month old.
Let that sink in for a moment. Nearly 50 parents approached doctors to find out whether they could have their newborn child killed. Infant children, it should go without saying, cannot give consent. But now that Canada’s Supreme Court and Parliament has given the medical system the task of killing people as well as healing them, some Canadian mothers and fathers have been emboldened to ask physicians if it would be possible to kill their infant sons or daughters.
Perhaps some of them heard about the Alberta woman who was given a suspended sentence for strangling her newborn and tossing him over the fence, with the judge citing the fact that Canada allows abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy as one of the determining factors in that sentence. Maybe some of them, upon discovering that their child was afflicted with awful disabilities or horrible medical conditions, wish they’d simply had an abortion. Either way, we can expect this push to continue. Doctors can kill now — so the question will be why can’t they kill this one?
People have a tendency to forget about issues like assisted suicide and euthanasia once the political brouhaha has settled down and it vanishes from the headlines. But it is important to remember that the suicide activists aren’t done yet. They aren’t satisfied with the current borders of the euthanasia regime, and have said to anyone willing to listen that they intend to see it vastly expanded. The media is on their side — the overt hostility of radio interviewers towards anyone who disagrees with assisted suicide is nauseating to listen to. The time for vigilance is not over simply because euthanasia is now legal. Suicide activists want more.
Next, they’ll come for the children.
November 10, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Over the past two decades, it has slowly dawned on Christians that the implications of same-sex “marriage” are far greater for those who still believe in the traditional understanding of marriage than even the cynics first thought possible. The politicians, the academics, and the media have reached the collective conclusion that if gay “marriage” is a civil right, those who oppose it are not simply dissenters holding to a two-thousand-year-old tradition, but ugly bigots who deserve to be marginalized for their discriminatory views. Thus, “live and let live” turned into “you will be forced to participate and approve,” with bakers, florists, property owners, and adoption agencies finding themselves to be the targets of gay activists who show a shocking ruthlessness in their enthusiasm for prosecuting supposed thought crimes.
None of this will be news to most of you, but the impact of radical reinvention of our social structures is beginning to impact Christian communities in ways that are striking even closer to home. There is the fact that public schools across Canada (and many places in the United States) are beginning to implement sex education that runs directly contrary to the beliefs of many traditionalist communities—and governments are beginning to eye Christian and private schools as unwelcome havens of dissenting thought and education. And worse: Christian parents and foster parents are increasingly finding themselves “disqualified” from adopting children or taking children into their homes because of their views.
I’ve spoken to many prospective parents and foster parents over the last several years who were either overtly rejected as a result of their views on sexuality, or otherwise found that they were suddenly and abruptly rejected when their views were made known. Often, direct questions are put to Christian parents to find out if they still hold to Christian principles, with the obvious insinuation that answers not fitting with the current progressive ideology will render them unfit to care for children.
Considering the massive shortage of willing foster parents across Canada, this is a rather shocking and blunt move on the part of those in charge of the process: Essentially, Christian parents are being told that their views render them so dangerous that it is better that children desperate for a loving home are still shuffled from place to place rather than come into contact with views that were nearly universal only short decades ago. Such stories are now just beginning to surface in the mainstream media, with an Edmonton, Alberta couple being the latest example. From Canada’s national broadcaster:
An evangelical Christian couple is accusing Alberta of discrimination, claiming their application to adopt a child was rejected over their religious views on gay marriage and homosexuality. The Edmonton married couple say they submitted their application last year and passed a required course for potential adoptive parents.
But during a followup by officials this year, the couple say they ran into trouble when they answered questions about sexuality. The couple say they accept that same-sex marriage is a legal reality, but they don’t support it and believe that homosexuality is wrong.
“The casework supervisor explained that our religious beliefs regarding sexuality were incompatible with the adoption process,” says an affidavit filed in support of an application for a judicial review of the government’s decision.
“The casework supervisor said this stance was the ‘official position of the Alberta government.’ “
The couple said they were also asked how they would deal with a child who was questioning his or her sexuality. They told officials that children should be taught that sexuality should not be experienced or explored until a person is an adult and is married. The couple, who aren’t named in the legal documents, said they treat all people with respect and their views on sexuality would have no bearing on their ability to provide a loving, secure and happy home to a child. They said they never dreamed they would be disqualified from helping children in need because of their religious beliefs.
You’ll notice that the initial myths propagated by those who advocated for the reinvention of marriage are crumbling away. The government does not take a neutral position—after all, it is not only evangelicals who hold to a traditional understanding of marriage. Sikhs, Muslims, mainstream Mormons, Catholics, and Orthodox Jews also reject the progressive reinvention of marriage. Of course, it is so far only Catholics and evangelicals who have found themselves in the crosshairs, and so politicians feel perfectly comfortable smearing and bashing these communities as bigots without feeling as if they are undermining their vacuous virtue-signalling on multiculturalism and immigration. There is now an official “government position,” and those who do not hold it are rapidly becoming second-class citizens.
As I mentioned, I’ve heard many versions of this story over the past several years, and I expect that this will only increase in the coming years. But what is important for Christians to note here is that they are being demonized in a very, very dangerous way. The government’s rejection of Christian homes as loving environments for children is an implicit statement: They are stating that Christians are not fit to raise children—because they are Christian. This is why provincial governments across Canada are making moves to force Christian schools to change thousands of years of doctrine, and this is why Christians must be alert and aware of what is taking place, and engaged in the political process.
After all, if Christian parents are deemed unfit to care for children with nowhere else to go, how long will it be before the government decides that they are unfit to care for any children? What if they decide that any educational institution or homeschooling group that does not adhere to the “government position” can no longer be entrusted with children? What if they decide that parents who hold to Christian principles are damaging their own children because of those principles?
Listen closely to the rhetoric that is being used, and look carefully at the justification politicians like Alberta Premier Rachel Notley are using to make it illegal for parents to be told what their children are doing while at school in the care of government employees. They are already making the case that Christian parents are dangerous. And that, for Christian parents and their children, could turn into an existential threat. It is time that communities that still believe parents have the right to educate their children and pass on their own values to stand up and pay attention. If we don’t, things could get even worse very quickly.
The Guardian’s digital editor Ian Prior has been absent from work after female staff members reported harassment allegations to management, BuzzFeed News has learned.
Guardian sources say Prior — the UK news organisation’s digital editor and former head of sport — is away from work while management investigate the allegations, made in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein revelations that have created shockwaves across Hollywood, the media industry and politics.
When reached by BuzzFeed News over the phone on Friday, Prior was asked if he had been suspended pending an investigation.
“I prefer to not comment on anything at the moment,” he said.
A Guardian spokesperson said: “We do not discuss specific personnel matters. We take any allegations relating to our staff seriously and have established procedures which we follow rigorously.”
According to sources, the Guardian’s assistant editor Emily Wilson has taken on Prior’s day-to-day duties while the investigation takes place.
BuzzFeed News understands there are allegations against at least two other male journalists, who are also not at work while the claims are investigated.
However, a Guardian source denied that three male employees had been suspended while investigations were taking place.
On Friday morning, The Guardian’s editor Katharine Viner sent an email to all staff with the subject line “harassment and bullying”, which said the Weinstein allegations had put a spotlight on workplaces.
“The revelations about sexual harassment in the entertainment industry have thrown the spotlight on harassment, bullying and dignity at work in all kinds of workplaces,” Viner wrote in the email.
“This is long overdue.”
“The kind of office culture I want for the Guardian is properly inclusive to all.”
Viner went on to stress that there were “clear policies on harassment, bullying and discrimination and dignity at work”, encouraging people to report any allegations to internal HR or the union.
The latest allegations against Guardian editors come after BuzzFeed News revealed earlier this year a complaint had been filed against former deputy Guardian US editor Matt Sullivan.
He’s alleged to have put his hand underneath a female employee’s shirt, on her torso and abdomen, and in the back pockets of her jeans. It’s an allegation the former Guardian editor denies.
Remember when it was polite to address a crowd as “ladies and gentlemen?”
Apparently, the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority has a different view; NYC Transit staffers have been instructed to eschew using “ladies and gentleman” and utilize non-gendered words such as “passengers,” “riders,” and “everyone,” in their announcements, according to the New York Post. which reported the missive to the employees read, “Please don’t use any greeting other than these.”
Just in case employees thought no one will be watching them too closely, MTA reportedly sent a memo to its employees warning that “line managers and train service supervisors will be monitoring them” for compliance with the new policy.
Not only is the MTA instructing its employees to change their live verbiage, audio recordings of “ladies and gentlemen are being updated, which means that until the changes are implemented, operators will have to manually override the system and make the announcements themselves.
An MTA spokesperson said that gender issues were involved in the decision.