Hilary White, Rome Correspondent

Narnia, Reepicheep, and the Culture War…

Hilary White, Rome Correspondent
Hilary White, Rome Correspondent
Image

GARDONE RIVIERA, Italy, July 10, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – When I was about nine, the thing I wanted more than anything else was to be swept away to a magical, heroic adventure in Narnia. My mother had given me C.S. Lewis’s books to read, and like so many other children, I became enamored of, almost obsessed, with the stories and the noble worldview they presented. If only I could live a life like that; of adventure and the pursuit of The Good, the fight against evil and oppression.

I know that scholars have examined the books and all their literary allusions, religious allegories, and historical implications, and in those papers, the character of Reepicheep – the fearless, gallant mouse, twirling his whiskers like a mustache, little paw resting on the hilt of his tiny rapier – has always been held up as Lewis’s icon of the ideal Christian knight.

Reepicheep, and his little band of miniscule followers, can present to a child someone with whom he can identify and whom he can emulate. Weak and small himself, Reepicheep defends the weak and small; aware of his flaws of pride, he befriends the flawed Eustace who repents of pride. Reepicheep’s strength is not in his arm but in the steadfastness of his faith. He never hesitates because he is, literally, fearless. His faith in Aslan has completely “cast out fear.”

Our managing director, Steve Jalsevac, likes to say that LifeSiteNews.com “has a punch well beyond our weight,”  that our influence far outreaches our size and limited resources. And this is true. I am told all the time that our articles are read, quoted and republished everywhere. But I have started to compare us not to a prizefighter, but to the valiant little mice of Reepicheep’s clan.

At Narnia’s darkest hour, the tiny mice, with little swords too small to do much damage, do not hesitate for an instant, don’t waste a moment considering the hopeless odds, or their relative size in the fight against Miraz’s Telmarines. They simply dive in to the fray, bringing down hardened soldiers ten times their size. By themselves, the mice could have done nothing to defeat the evil Miraz, but without them, their bravery and the sting of their needle-like swords, the Narnian army would have likely faced swift defeat. (Well, the trees helped too, I suppose).

This is how I have been thinking of LifeSite lately. With a staff of 15 or so, scattered around the world in 4 countries and two continents, mostly working from home, communicating by Skype and email, depending almost entirely on the individual donations of our readers, LifeSiteNews.com keeps stinging the toes of our giant opponents, throwing them off guard, keeping them hopping-mad, furious that we are too small to kill and too painful to ignore.

The rapier we carry is made of the truth, the needle-sharp facts behind the population control and abortion slogans that the mainstream media and the political class want to conceal.

Help us continue to carrier this rapier. Donate Today!
(Click Here to Donate)

We may not be able to defeat our opponents with truth alone, but we make it more possible for the whole pro-life community to win. Every time I hear our detractors – and we have a lot of them – try to diminish our work (calling us merely a ‘blog’  is one of the latest favorites) I think of Reepicheep, the hero of the Second Battle of Beruna, the friend of Aslan.

As a devotee of the books, there wasn’t much about the Prince Caspian movie I liked, but I thought this scene captured a bit of Reepicheep’s flair:

I have spent the last week or so in a small town in northern Italy attending a conference on the social teachings of the Catholic Church and their political, legal, and economic implications and I’ve occasionally felt a little out of my depth - just a wee bit intimidated. Founded by no less a person than Dietrich Von Hildebrand, the Roman Forum’s speakers are all people with multiple PhDs, ‘summa cum laude’  from Ivy League universities and places like Oxford.

The attendees come from eight countries, teach law and economics, speak several languages and have published books and papers, organized conferences and been in the thick of the fight to save the world, in some cases since before I was born.

In truth, while I have learned a great deal and will certainly come away with a broader and more complete understanding of the battles we fight, I have felt a bit outclassed. Among such intellectual heavy-weight fighters, my little sword seems as small and ineffective as Reepicheep’s rapier.

But one by one, each of the illustrious people I have talked to has told me how vital, how indispensable our work is at LifeSiteNews.com. Very few people can come to an international academic symposium. But the whole world needs to know what these people know and are saying and none of these Catholic intellectual heavy-weights are able to do that.

There are times when I simply cannot believe how fortunate I am to be doing this, and I am nearly floored by how much respect and admiration our work receives. Today, I think I had one of the nicest compliments so far. A man who has spent 20 years or more working in the mainstream media, who covered the attacks on the Trade Towers in 2001, who made documentaries for A&E and was director of programming for EWTN, told me that LifeSiteNews.com is one of the best news services out there, “absolutely without comparison.”

“No one else is doing what you do. Without you guys, there would be an un-fillable gap.”

This summer, will you help us continue to fill this vital gap?
Help us reach our goal.

(Click Here to Donate)

When you, our readers, contribute to the financial upkeep of LifeSiteNews.com, as I have said before, you are in your own way joining us in this fight. We work as your proxies and representatives. Few people are free to devote themselves completely to this particular work. Businesses must be run, classes taught, families raised. So when you donate to LifeSiteNews.com, we are, in a sense, working for you, and allowing you to become directly involved from where ever you are.

It is simply a truth that without the support of readers, our work would come to a sudden screeching halt. I have been writing for LSN for nearly 8 years and the forces lined up against us grow more ferocious every year. The Narnia stories instilled in me the desire for noble and romantic battles, to enter in some small way into the titanic struggle of good against evil.

And here I am doing just that, as the Rome Correspondent for LifeSiteNews.


Hilary White
Rome Correspondant
LifeSiteNews.com


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