In my latest ATIP to CRA I asked for:
"All records including but not limited to internal/external correspondence, memos, briefings, work plans, and meeting notes related to the Liberal campaign promise to no longer provide charitable status to anti-abortion organizations."
(My last ATIP to CRA on this subject is here.)
Most of the correspondence I received back, were copies of media articles and letters to the editor about the proposed changes. There are also a couple of pro-life letters/articles in the package. But most of what is included are media articles from progressives.
There is one letter to the editor where we are compared to the Taliban. Really.
There is one long article that is not unfavorable to our position, and the author makes some noteworthy points.
What is absent from the ATIP is any proof of the so-called "dishonest counseling" from any pro-life organizations. To date, our prime minister has failed to give us any proof of his allegations. That's because this is a totally made-up idea, dreamt up by him to continue his unrelenting attack on pro-life groups.
A few excerpts below. More to come later.
A few excerpts below. More to come later.
--------------------------------------------------
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Mandate Letter states:
• "introduce amendments to the Income Tax Act to make anti-abortion organizations that provide dishonest counselling to pregnant women about their rights and options ineligible for charitable status, and to expand the Medical Expense Tax Credit to include costs reimbursed to surrogate mothers for IVF expenses. You will be supported in this work by the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth [no kidding]."
--------------------------------------------------
Minister for Women and Gender Equality [what a ludicrous name for a department] and Youth Mandate Letter states:
• "Support the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance in introducing amendments to the Income Tax Act to make anti-abortion organizations that provide dishonest counselling to pregnant women about their rights and options ineligible for charitable status..."
--------------------------------------------------
Notice how the DPM and the Minister of Women and Gender Equality fall into lock step with the PM, agreeing without question, this discriminatory policy
But I do like the following comments below embedded in the ATIP. They are notes taken from a meeting of bureaucrats. No names. Only initials. But have a look at BM's and DW's comments. These are about the only comments I found in the document where a bureaucrat questions this stupid policy from our you know who.
BM • "Talking at Muttart about proposed amendment r.e. anti-abortion groups, giving dishonest info refused charitable status. Concern about naming one type of organization can set a dangerous precedent. Becomes a subjective discussion about what's dishonest info, future gov'ts might target pollution, or critical race theory. Does CRA not have tools around providing dishonest info already?" (emphasis added)
DW • "Mandate letter was concerning, especially given provisions in ITA to deal with dishonesty, and subjectivity around dishonesty (environment, anti-abortion,etc.) Nothing in B2022, but no clarity or further statements about what's happening." (emphasis added)
And DW again:
DW • "Mandate letters re ITA, and anti-abortion orgs providing dishonest counselling. Concerns about status being dependent on certain views, and the linking of gov't funding and those views. No consultation or info on the details. (emphasis added)
Did BM and DW not get the memo? Ouch
Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.
In an interview quoted in Canada's National Post, the chief merchant of Simons stated that the film was "obviously not a commercial campaign." Instead, it was a signifier of a public-spirited desire to "build the communities that we want to live in tomorrow, and leave to our children."
For those communities and children, the video’s message is clear: They should believe in the holiness of euthanasia.The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has been urging its supporters to boycott Simons.
In recent years, Canada has established some of the world’s most permissive euthanasia laws, allowing adults to seek either physician-assisted suicide or direct euthanasia for many different forms of serious suffering, not just terminal diseases. In 2021, over 10,000 people ended their lives this way, just over 3 percent of all deaths in Canada. A further expansion, allowing euthanasia for mental health conditions, will go into effect in March 2023; permitting euthanasia for “mature” minors is also being considered.
The rules of civilization necessarily include gray areas. It is not barbaric for the law to acknowledge hard choices in end-of-life care, about when to withdraw life support or how aggressively to manage agonizing pain.Douthat then comments on the concept of euthanasia as a human right.
It is barbaric, however, to establish a bureaucratic system that offers death as a reliable treatment for suffering and enlists the healing profession in delivering this “cure.” And while there may be worse evils ahead, this isn’t a slippery slope argument: When 10,000 people are availing themselves of your euthanasia system every year, you have already entered the dystopia.
The idea that human rights encompass a right to self-destruction, the conceit that people in a state of terrible suffering and vulnerability are really “free” to make a choice that ends all choices, the idea that a healing profession should include death in its battery of treatments — these are inherently destructive ideas. Left unchecked, they will forge a cruel brave new world, a dehumanizing final chapter for the liberal story.Douthat acknowledges that there are Liberals who oppose euthanasia but he suggests that a potent Conservatism is needed to prevent euthanasia from spreading. He writes:
Yes, there are liberals, Canadian and American, who can see what’s wrong with euthanasia. Yes, the most explicit cheerleading for quietus can still inspire backlash: Twitter reactions to the Simons video have been harsh, and it’s vanished from the company’s website.
But without a potent conservatism, the cultural balance tilts too much against these doubts.
Conservatism is not required to oppose euthanasia but we need to call it what it is. Calling euthanasia MAiD takes away the reality that euthanasia is an act of killing. You don't need to be religious or Conservative to oppose killing.
