Maureen's thoughts
Thursday, January 2, 2025
Run With Life: Finance committee biased against pro-life charities
'In Canada, anti-abortion organizations use misleading information in an attempt to dissuade people from seeking safe abortion and some politicians are promoting disinformation regarding sexuality education and gender-affirming care.'
This misinformation and disinformation from ACSHR resulted in this recommendation from the Report of the Standing Committee on Finance:
ACSHR makes unproven and already debunked allegations about pro-life charities, and this results in the Standing Committee on Finance recommending that pro-life charities lose their charitable status. Is this for real? Did the committee verify these allegations? Did they do any checking at all on the validity of these claims? Because if they did they would have learned that any disinformation and misinformation comes from the pro-abortion side of the divide.
Unbelievably, this committee is willing to recommend that an entire sector of charities lose their charitable status, based on untruths. These falsehoods come from an organization that has received millions of dollars in government grants, all the while Pro-life charities receive no government grants.
And should a charity that receives millions, be allowed to lobby the government to remove the charitable status from another charity? Is this ethical? Or are ethics not important anymore?
Friday, December 27, 2024
Sunday, December 22, 2024
Wednesday, December 18, 2024
Run With Life: Ontario pays for 19 abortions in the US at $17,382...
Saturday, December 14, 2024
Saturday, December 7, 2024
Why does the government fund far-right hate and not far-left hate?
"The judge said that the statements made had the benefit of being true, noting that, “CAHN did in fact assist Antifa and that the movement has been violent,” and it would be reasonable to state that it is not a “good look” for a human rights organization to support a violent movement. Additionally, the judge concluded the defence of fair comment could apply, meaning the opinions expressed by the Kays could be reasonably drawn from the known facts and were not expressed out of malice. The judge noted that even “Warman’s evidence was that he and CAHN were part of the Antifa movement,” and its “muscular resistance” and “physical disruption” were known to two other board members."