jjalsevac@lifesite.net

Canadians: Tell your MP to stop the ‘bathroom bill’

jjalsevac@lifesite.net

My fellow Canadians,

If you have not already done so, now is the time to write your MP and urge him or her to oppose the ‘trans’ bill (C-389), which will add the ambiguous phrases “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the Canada Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.

This bill, proposed by the NDP’s ‘LGBT’ critic Bill Siksay, is merely the latest attempt by the homosexualist lobby to force their ideology on our families.  It will lead to even greater restrictions on our freedoms as we’ve seen with other concessions to homosexualists, like the protections based on “sexual orientation” and the legalization of same-sex “marriage.”

There appears to have been some collusion on this bill between the NDP and the Conservative government.  Pro-family groups are warning that there is a grave danger the bill could pass, and it could come up for a vote anytime.  Very few people are even aware that this is coming down the pipe, because there’s been almost nothing on it from the mainstream media.

Here’s the letter I wrote to my MP today:

Dear————,

I am writing as a constituent to ask you to oppose Bill C-389, which seeks to enshrine protections based on “gender identity” and “gender expression.”

While the bill would seem to prevent unjust discrimination, it actually presents a grave danger to families, particularly women and children.

Given that the bill gives no definitions for the terms it proposes to add to the Criminal Code and the Human Rights Act, the interpretations will be wide and potentially disastrous.

It will lead to male cross-dressers being allowed into women’s bathrooms.  Just this fall, the Maine Human Rights Commission ruled that a school must allow a boy to use the school’s girls’ bathroom.  By putting more men in women’s bathrooms, C-389 will put women and young girls at greater risk of attacks in these bathrooms.  How will she know if this man is an attacker or simply a cross-dresser?

Further, the bill treats what amounts to a disorder (called gender identity disorder) in the eyes of many psychologists as a normal mental state, and thus normalizes mental illness.  This could make it even more difficult for those who struggle with GID to obtain treatment.

Again,————, I would urge you to vote this bill down and find ways to strengthen families rather than further endanger them.

Sincerely,

Patrick Craine

Send your own letter today.  Use what I’ve written as you like, and take from the arguments of the numerous pro-family leaders we’ve quoted in our coverage.  See, for example:

‘Lunatic’ transgender bill could pass next week, warns pro-family leader

Pro-family activists concerned Canadian ‘transgender’ bill will increase bathroom attacks

RED ALERT: ‘Scary’ Canadian Transgender Anti-Discrimination Bill Sails Thru Committee


Advertisement

Rep. Chris Smith: Lord Windsor’s article a “must read” for pro-life, human rights advocates

Peter J. Smith
By Peter Smith
Image

Lord Nicholas Windsor’s article in the ecumenical journal First Things calling for a new abolition movement to end legal abortion has now circulated into the official record of the U.S. Capitol.

Pro-life and human rights advocate US Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) had Windsor’s article entered into the Congressional Record on Tuesday evening, calling it a “brilliant essay” and a “must read for those who treasure and promote human rights.”

The great-grandson of King George V of England argues persuasively that legal abortion is a “mortal wound to the heart of Europe” that poses a far greater threat to civilization than al-Qaida and Islamic extremists. He also says that the lessons of history on industrialized killing have been lost on Europe, and abortion has become so accepted that is almost invisible in European politics.

Windsor’s essay was covered by LSN this past Monday, and it is worth revisiting.

Windsor’s article, which Rep. Smith had entered in full into the Congressional Record, is available here at First Things. Smith, I should mention, is an ardent defender of human life and human rights, and is the incoming chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Human Rights Committee, a position he held before when the GOP last had control of the House.

The essay deserves to be read widely in the pro-life community and discussed. As Rep. Smith pointed out in his remarks before entering it into the record, Windsor’s essay is “equally applicable to us.”

It’s an essay of warning and an essay of hope. I’ll just quote the last lines, because it reminds us that the goal of the pro-life movement cannot be just to end abortion, but also to support human life and flourishing in a way that makes abortion an unthinkable option.

Writes Windsor: “We must also creatively envisage new and compelling answers to the problems that give rise to this practice, when the easiest solutions may be destructive or distorting ones. And the goal is that human life, without any exception, may be as treasured and respected as the highest moral thought has perennially called for it to be, and as our consciences surely sound the echo.”

Merry Christmas. 


Advertisement

The aesthetics of casual sex in ‘Love and Other Drugs’

Caitlin Bowers
By Caitlin Bowers
Image

In a November interview with Newsweek Magazine, Edward Zwick revealed his graphic and dirty little secrets on how he was able to direct sex scenes while filming the recently released Love and Other Drugs.

The film, starring Anne Hathaway and Jake Gyllenhall, depicts the story of Maggie, a young woman struggling with Parkinson’s, and Jamie, an arrogant drug salesman.

You won’t find much more of a synopsis than this. Even the Huffington Post remarked that “it finally ends up being about nothing much at all.”

Aside from the empty plot, the film displays the duo diving into an anything-but-fulfilling physical relationship – no strings attached, or clothes for that matter. The film is riddled with graphic sex scenes, which appear to be Zwick’s primary objective in filming the movie.

In the interview with Newsweek, Zwick educates the public on the art of filming onscreen sex. “Sex is a way of communicating in life. In this movie, sex plays an important role in the narrative arc of the characters – they fall into bed long before they fall into love. That was our guide.”

Zwick’s analysis of sexual relations is more reminiscent of drunken frat parties than real, sustainable, and fulfilling commitments. While dismissing all that “love” stuff, Zwick has brought casual sex to the forefront, upholding it as the primary attribute that brings couples closer together. If sex is a means of communicating in life, then what’s the point of actually talking? That’s just boring.

Then again, discourse doesn’t bring money into the box office like it used to.

Hollywood has attempted to turn casual sex into an aesthetic, like displaying showpieces at a museum. Zwick implied this idea as he discussed the extreme measures taken to show the actors how it’s done. “I finally said we should all take a picture together. I climbed into bed and took my pants off under the covers.”

Some things are just better left unsaid.

So what is it that separates Hollywood sex scenes from porn, other than the fact that the celebrities aren’t actually “doing it”? Don’t porn stars fall into bed before falling in love? Casual sex is certainly their way of communicating and expressing themselves, is it not?

If this is what Zwick and Hollywood have in mind, then there’s nothing to stop pornography from marketing itself as a vehicle for a deeper appreciation of art and beauty.


Advertisement

Roxanne’s Law: Decisive Vote TODAY at 3:15

jjalsevac@lifesite.net
jjalsevac@lifesite.net

Roxanne’s Law, a Canadian bill seeking to ban abortion coercion, will be voted on in the House of Commons today (December 15) after Question Period.  It’s expected around 3:15 est.

Pro-life groups have rallied behind the bill, hoping to get it passed so it will be sent to committee where the language can be tightened up.

The bill is fundamentally about protecting the choice of those women who decide to keep their babies.  It should gain support from any MP claiming to be “pro-choice”, and not merely the pro-life MPs.

Nevertheless, pro-abort MPs have tried to find other reasons to oppose it, as we would expect.  They claim, for example, that coercion is already covered under the Criminal Code.  But pro-lifers have pointed out that while abortion coercion may technically be covered, the Code’s obviously not doing its job because no one has ever been charged with abortion coercion.

You can watch the vote on CPAC here.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook