Peter Baklinski

,

Girl Guides of Canada supports pro-abortion groups

Peter Baklinski
Peter Baklinski

TORONTO, February 14, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – As US pro-life activists lead a boycott campaign on the Girl Scouts, the Girl Guides of Canada has been caught partnering with and supporting organizations that actively promote contraception and abortion as empowering to girls.

Promising to be “true to myself” and to “take action for a better world” Girl Guide members have been sent as youth representatives to pro-abortion conferences in the developing world and to a leadership training camp run by a pro-abortion-and-contraception organization. They have worked for organizations promoting “reproductive health” in poor countries.

Critics have called the revelation “appalling” and a “betrayal” of women.

Girl Guides members sent to pro-abortion ‘Women Deliver’ conference

Girl Guides of Canada sent youth representatives to the 2013 Women Deliver conference in Malaysia, a global event where the world’s leading abortion and population-control advocates — including Microsoft billionaire Melinda Gates; abortionist LeRoy Carhart; Catholics for a Free Choice founder Frances Kissling; and Princeton infanticide advocate Peter Singer — made presentations.

“Participating in the conference also allowed me to grow as a human being and learn to appreciate many of the things I take for granted on a daily basis,” wrote Rukaiyah Lakkadghatwala, a Girl Guide for 11 years, on the GirlGuidesCAN blog. “Attending the conference also allowed me to fully appreciate how the Girl Guides of Canada supports our growth and development into strong women.”

Grade 11 student Carly Checholik said she was glad to be chosen as a representative since she has “been a fan of what Women Deliver stands for a few years now.”

Checholik said her “highlight” from the conference was when a panel addressed her concerns about the “education of young girls when it comes to sexual and reproductive rights.”

“I cherish the way Women Deliver opened my eyes and gave me a first-hand look at the problems facing people my age around the world,” she wrote on the GirlGuidesCAN blog.

Girl Guides members receive exclusive training from ‘sexual rights’ organization

Last year Girl Guides of Canada sent girls to a leadership training camp near Montreal called Young Women’s Leadership Program run by Girls Action Foundation, an organization that promotes homosexuality, oral sex, anal sex, lesbian “humping,” sex toys, abortion, and contraception.

“Honestly, I was totally engrossed, being surrounded by girls who care about the issues I do and wanted to do their best to change for the better was awe-inspiring,” wrote Girl Guide Elizabeth from Kelowna, BC on GirlGuidesCAN’s blog.

Girl Guides partners with organizations teaching ‘reproductive health’ in developing world

In 2012, Girl Guides from Nova Scotia ages 9-17 sewed reusable sanitary pads for the Jamii Foundation, an organization that teaches children in Kenya about “reproductive health,” “contraceptives,” and “healthy relationships.”

Life and family leaders point out that ‘reproductive health’ is generally synonymous with sex education that emphasizes non-marital sex, the promotion of greater access to abortion, and the promotion of contraception.

Candace Tattrie, director of the Jamii Foundation, said at that time that she was “overwhelmed” by the Girl Guides “support and eagerness to change lives.”

Girl Guides partners with organization promoting abortion as ‘sexual health’

Among Girl Guides of Canada partners is Plan International, an organization with an outreach program for girls called “Because I am a Girl” that equates sexual health for girls with easy access to abortion and contraception.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

“[It’s about] having control over your own body when it comes to having sex and having children,” the group states on its website for teens.

“Girls and women have been in a looonnggggg (sic) fight to have control over their own bodies, especially when it comes to getting pregnant and having babies. The fight isn’t over yet…”

Last year a Plan International delegate to the UN Human Rights Council urged that children and adolescents in the third world should receive “comprehensive sexual education…as part of the school curriculum” to advance the goal of achieving “reproductive health”.

Plan International failed to reply to two letters from United for Life in 2005 asking the organization to “oppose the killing of children by abortion, contraception, human embryo experimentation, IVF, human cloning, and related activities.”

“This raised the question of Plan International's commitment to implementing in full the UDHRs [Universal Declaration of Human Rights] and the Declaration on the Rights of the Child in regard to the unborn,” the group stated.

Girl Guides part of a larger organization championing ‘reproductive health’

Girl Guides of Canada is a member of the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS), an international organization that has as part of its mandate to “promote access to education and information about sexual and reproductive health.”

“Reproductive health” is a common theme on WAGGGS’ website.

“The World Association’s way of working enables girls and young women to talk openly about issues such as sexual and reproductive health among their peers and in a safe environment,” WAGGGS says about “prevent[ing] adolescent pregnancy,” its third of seven “key messages” to girls worldwide.

In 2010 WAGGGS boasted that it had sent a young female delegate to advocate for “accessible, affordable and safe abortions” at the 54th session of the Commission on the Status of Women at the United Nations headquarters in New York City.

WAGGGS has partnered with UN agencies such as UNFPA, UNICEF, and UNAIDS, all known for promoting abortion, comprehensive sexuality education, and ‘sexual rights’.

‘Betraying’ Canadian girls

Alissa Golob of Campaign Life Coalition Youth told LifeSiteNews.com that Girl Guides has “betrayed” girls across the country by “partnering with and supporting organizations that promote the exploitation of women and girls by means of contraception and abortion.”

“Contraception strips a girl of one of her greatest and most precious gifts — her fertility. It teaches her to value herself in terms of sexual availability. Is it really ‘pro-woman’ for girls to be taught to be objectified like that?”

“Girl Guides should instead be teaching girls to embrace their fertility, not reject it,” she said.

Gwen Landolt, national vice-president of REAL Women of Canada, called the Girl Guide link to contraception and abortion “appalling."

“Instead of teaching young women to be the leaders of tomorrow, Girl Guides is teaching them to be the sex-objects of tomorrow,” she told LifeSiteNews.com.

Landolt, who belonged to the Girl Guides as a little girl, wondered, “Who’s guiding the Guides?”

“They seem to have lost their way in everything that Girl Guides is supposed to be about — building character and being future citizens.”

Landolt criticized the Girl Guides for jumping on a “secular bandwagon” that she said transforms girls into “sexual objects” instead of “women of merit and character.”

“What’s the purpose of Girl Guides now, to become a sexual object and learn how to have sex?”

“No rational parent would want their daughter to be involved in that clutch of misleading tenets,” she said. “I wouldn’t want my daughter or granddaughter anywhere near that organization.”

The news comes at a time when Girl Scouts USA is facing increasing scrutiny for its pro-abortion and anti-family actions and policies and multi-faceted ties to the ‘reproductive rights’ agenda.

Girl Guides of Canada did not respond to LifeSiteNews.com’s questions by press time asking what a scouting organization is doing pushing contraception and abortion on its girls.

Contact:

Sharron Callahan, Girl Guides Canada Chief Commissioner
ic@girlguides.ca

Girl Guides Canada National Office
Girl Guides of Canada-Guides du Canada
50 Merton Street
Toronto, Ontario M4S 1A3
Phone: (416) 487-5281
Use online email form here.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Quebec groups launch court challenge to euthanasia bill

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

As announced when the Quebec legislature adopted Bill 52, An Act respecting end-of-life care, the citizen movement Living with Dignity and the Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia, representing together over 650 physicians and 17,000 citizens, filed a lawsuit before the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Montreal on Thursday.

The lawsuit requests that the Court declare invalid all the provisions of the Act that deal with “medical aid in dying”, a term the groups say is a euphemism for euthanasia. This Act not only allows certain patients to demand that a physician provoke their death, but also grants physicians the right to cause the death of these patients by the administration of a lethal substance.

The two organizations are challenging the constitutionality of those provisions in the Act which are aimed at decriminalizing euthanasia under the euphemism “medical aid in dying”. Euthanasia constitutes a culpable homicide under Canada’s Criminal Code, and the organizations maintain that it is at the core of the exclusive federal legislative power in relation to criminal law and Quebec therefore does not have the power to adopt these provisions.

The organizations also say the impugned provisions unjustifiably infringe the rights to life and to security of patients guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. They further infringe the right to the safeguard of the dignity of the person, which is also protected by the Quebec Charter.

In view of the gravity of the situation and the urgent need to protect all vulnerable persons in Quebec, they are requesting an accelerated management of the case in order to obtain a judgment before the Act is expected to come into force on December 10, 2015.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Colorado baker appeals gvmt ‘re-education’ order

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

A Colorado cake artist who declined to use his creative talents to promote and endorse a same-sex ceremony appealed a May 30 order from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to the Colorado Court of Appeals Wednesday.

The commission’s order requires cake artist Jack Phillips and his staff at Masterpiece Cakeshop to create cakes for same-sex celebrations, forces him to re-educate his staff that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act means that artists must endorse all views, compels him to implement new policies to comply with the commission’s order, and requires him to file quarterly “compliance” reports for two years. The reports must include the number of patrons declined a wedding cake or any other product and state the reason for doing so to ensure he has fully eliminated his religious beliefs from his business.

“Americans should not be forced by the government – or by another citizen – to endorse or promote ideas with which they disagree,” said the cake artist’s lead counsel Nicolle Martin, an attorney allied with Alliance Defending Freedom. “This is not about the people who asked for a cake; it’s about the message the cake communicates. Just as Jack doesn’t create baked works of art for other events with which he disagrees, he doesn’t create cake art for same-sex ceremonies regardless of who walks in the door to place the order.”

“In America, we don’t force artists to create expression that is contrary to their convictions,” added Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “A paint artist who identifies as homosexual shouldn’t be intimidated into creating a painting that celebrates one-man, one-woman marriage. A pro-life photographer shouldn’t be forced to work a pro-abortion rally. And Christian cake artists shouldn’t be punished for declining to participate in a same-sex ceremony or promote its message.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex ceremony. In an exchange lasting about 30 seconds, Phillips politely declined, explaining that he would gladly make them any other type of baked item they wanted but that he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. Craig and Mullins, now represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, immediately left the shop and later filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division. The case now goes to the Colorado Court of Appeals as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig.

“Jack, and other cake artists like him – such as those seen on TV shows like ‘Ace of Cakes’ and ‘Cake Boss’ – prepare unique creations that are inherently expressive,” Tedesco explained. “Jack invests many hours in the wedding cake creative process, which includes meeting the clients, designing and sketching the cake, and then baking, sculpting, and decorating it. The ACLU calls Jack a mere ‘retail service provider,’ but, in fact, he is an artist who uses his talents and abilities to create expression that the First Amendment fully protects."

Celebrity cake artists have written publicly about their art and the significant expressive work that goes into the artistic design process for wedding cakes.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Tony Gosgnach / LifeSiteNews.com
Tony Gosgnach

,

Prisoner of conscience Mary Wagner appeals her conviction

Tony Gosgnach
By Tony Gosgnach

TORONTO -- As promised, Mary Wagner has, through her counsel Dr. Charles Lugosi, filed a formal notice of appeal on numerous points regarding her recent, almost two-year-long court case that ended on June 12.

Justice Fergus O’Donnell of the Ontario Court of Justice rejected every application made by the defence – including for access to abortion center records, public funding, standing for a constitutional challenge and for expert witnesses to be heard – before he found Wagner guilty and sentenced her to five months in jail on a charge of mischief and four months on four counts of failing to comply with probation orders.

He further levied two years of probation, with terms that she stay at least 100 metres away from any abortion site. However, because Wagner had spent a greater time in jail than the sentence, she was freed immediately. She had been arrested at the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site on Lawrence Avenue West in Toronto on August 15, 2012 after attempting to speak to abortion-bound women there. She then spent the duration of the trial in prison for refusing to sign bail conditions requiring her to stay away from abortion sites.

Wagner is using the matter as a test case to challenge the current definition of a human being in Canadian law – that is, that a human being is legally recognized as such only after he or she has fully emerged from the birth canal in a breathing state.

Wagner’s notice states the appeal is regarding:

  • Her conviction and sentence on a single count of mischief (interference with property),
  • Her conviction and sentence on four counts of breach of probation,
  • The order denying public funding,
  • The order denying the disclosure of third-party records,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts on the applicant’s constitutional challenge concerning the constitutional validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts concerning the construction of Section 37 of the Criminal Code,
  • The probation order denying Wagner her constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion on all public sidewalks and public areas within 100 metres of places where abortions are committed,
  • And each conviction and sentence and all orders and rulings made by O’Donnell.

In the notice of appeal, Lugosi cites numerous points on which O’Donnell erred:

  • He denied Wagner her constitutional right to make full answer and defence.
  • He denied Wagner her right to rely on Section 37 of the Criminal Code, which permits “everyone” to come to the third-party defence and rescue of any human being (in this case, the preborn) facing imminent assault.
  • He decided the factual basis of Wagner’s constitutional arguments was a waste of the court’s time and that no purpose would have been served by having an evidentiary hearing on her Charter application because, in the current state of Canadian law, it had no possibility of success.
  • He misapplied case law and prejudged the case, “giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and impeding the legal evolution of the law to adapt to new circumstances, knowledge and changed societal values and morals.”
  • He accepted the Crown’s submission that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts to question the jurisdiction of Parliament legally to define “human being” in any manner Parliament sees fit.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code is not beyond the powers of Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code does not violate the Preamble to, as well as Sections 7, 11(d), 15 and 26, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  • He denied Wagner standing to raise a constitutional challenge to the validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code.
  • He ruled that Section 223 of the Criminal Code applied generally throughout the entire Criminal Code and used it to deny unborn human beings the benefit of equal protection as born human beings under Section 37 of the Criminal Code.
  • He denied the production and disclosure of third-party records in the possession of the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site, although the records were required to prove Wagner was justified in using reasonable force in the form of oral and written words to try to persuade pregnant mothers from killing their unborn children by abortion.
  • He denied Wagner the defence of Section 37 of the Criminal Code by ruling unborn children did not come within the scope of human beings eligible to be protected by a third party.
  • He ruled Wagner did not come within the scope of Section 37 because she was found to be non-violent (in that she did not use physical force).
  • He ruled the unborn children Wagner was trying to rescue were not under her protection.
  • He denied Wagner the common-law defences of necessity and the rescue of third parties in need of protection.
  • He denied Wagner public funding to make full answer and defence for a constitutional test case of great public importance and national significance.
  • He imposed an unconstitutional sentence upon Wagner by, in effect, imposing an injunction as a condition of probation, contrary to her constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Among the orders Lugosi is seeking are:

  • That an appeal be allowed against conviction on all counts and that a verdict of acquittal be entered on all counts,
  • That Section 223 of the Criminal Code be found unconstitutional  and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as the unwritten constitution of Canada,
  • That the sentence be declared unconstitutional and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the unwritten constitution of Canada or that a new trial be conducted, with Wagner permitted to make full answer and defence, be given standing to make a constitutional attack on Section 223 of the Criminal Code, with the admission of expert witnesses,
  • That the Women’s Care Clinic abortion site be made to produce third-party records pertaining to patients seen on August 15, 2012 (when Wagner entered the site),
  • And that there be public funding for two defence counsels at any retrial and for any appeal related to the case.

No date has yet been established for a decision on the appeal or hearings.

A defence fund for Wagner’s case is still raising money. Details on how to contribute to it can be found here.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook