Wow, I’m grumpy this morning… tired of 12-year-olds on the Hill pushing for an agenda they won’t say out loud (see said G8 maternal health resolution that must not be like that nasty George W. Bush but does not include the word abortion).
Then there’s this article, whereby a lack of a spot at a government table is somehow being called censorship. No one is saying Action Canada can’t lobby, write press releases, hold a protest. No one is saying they shouldn’t exist, least of all me. I’m saying that any party and/or government should not support groups that are hostile to their vision. And in final assessment, the government should not choose an abortion-rights group to do a maternal health initiative. Government funding does not equal freedom of speech.
Let it be noted, once again, Action Canada for Population Development does not do work like World Vision does. They work to expand abortion rights. You will never have an Action Canada child pinned up on your wall, because they are too busy trying to decrease the surplus population of the earth. (That’s a quote from A Christmas Carol, if you must know, the 1951 version.)
World Vision says abortion is not part of maternal health. Who are you going to trust? Them or Bob Rae?
Véronique adds: Oh my. When I am in a good mood, this kind of stuff ruins it. Badly written, badly argued. Yet published. I mean, 12-year-olds on the Hill have been known to ruin my day on occasion but 12-year-olds I can deal with. When they behave like 4-year-olds, it’s tougher. What really turns my crank in the article, having listened to the interview on the Current, is that Andrea never suggested censorship. The comment was made by the following guest, who obviously didn’t dig the ProWomanProLife ideal. The writer whould do her homework before using big words like censorship.