Thaddeus Baklinski

News

State-funded Canadian broadcaster cancels porn web show after protests

Thaddeus Baklinski

OTTAWA, March 9, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The soft-core porn web show “Hard,” which Canada’s state-funded broadcaster CBC had been making available at taxpayers’ expense on its French language website in Quebec, has been canceled after the CBC was called on the carpet by members of Parliament, including Prime Minister Harper and Heritage Minister James Moore.

The story came to light last month when Brian Lilley of Sun News Network’s program Byline showed a censored clip from the show.

The program, produced in France by a private company, was purchased by the CBC for an undisclosed amount and was made available on a Radio-Canada website called tou.tv.

Lilley remarked that CBC spokesman Marco Dube defended the program, saying it was not pornographic but suitable for anyone over the age of sixteen. “Hard is not considered a pornographic program. It is rated 16+,” Dube wrote by email to Sun News, adding that the show is popular in other parts of the world and that “Radio-Canada does not air pornographic series on any of its platforms.”

After Heritage Minister James Moore and the office of Prime Minister Stephen Harper criticized the CBC for showing soft porn, CBC president Hubert Lacroix still defended the program saying, “This series is a web series that’s been very successful in Europe. Also, it’s a series that is in line with the mandate of tou.tv.”

Heritage Minister James Moore said, “This programming cannot be defended. Having now seen the show in question, it raises serious concerns about some programming decisions being made with taxpayers’ dollars by CBC/Radio-Canada.”

Andrew MacDougall, a spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, issued a statement saying, “This content is clearly adult in nature and should not be available to children. While the government doesn’t control CBC’s content, we are confused by their decision to purchase sexually explicit content and make it available to children. The CBC’s mandate is to deliver quality programming to the regions and rural areas, not this material.”

Members of Parliament across party lines followed suit in condemning the CBC for airing porn with taxpayers’ money.

NDP MP Peter Stoffer (Sackville-Eastern Shore) said, “If this is the RDI using French actors through our tax system in order to produce this, I would say it is not a good use of taxpayers’ dollars. I think most Canadians and Quebecers would say, ‘What the heck is going on here?’” in a Sun News report.  He added, “To allocate dollars for things of a sexual nature like this would make most Quebecers and most Canadians uncomfortable.”

“I can understand promoting the French language, but I certainly would not support anything that involves porn, that’s for sure,” said Liberal MP Lawrence MacAulay, (Cardigan) while Conservative MP Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead) said, “I don’t think my constituents would like paying for any television programming made outside of Canada. It doesn’t look right to me.”

Tory MP John Williamson, (New Brunswick Southwest) the former head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, said, “This kind of programming should not be on a broadcaster that is funded by taxpayers, that receives a billion dollars a year, this kind of industry does not need tax dollars to support it.”

The outcry prompted the CBC to first move the raunchy show from prime time to after midnight. “In line with its policies and programs to ensure that the Hard series is not seen by children, Radio-Canada has decided to restrict the spread between midnight and 4 am (EST) today,” the French language network advised on its Facebook page.

This was followed by a statement posted March 8 on the series’ webpage that stated, “This show is no longer available on tou.tv. Visit our site regularly to know when the show might resume.”

Marc Pichette of Radio-Canada told Le Devoir that the CBC will not resume broadcasting the porn show.

“In the case of the Hard series, this automated message is not entirely appropriate because we do not intend to repeat this series. We prefer to present a series that is available at all times,” Pichette said.

Contact info:

The Office of the Ombudsman, Radio-Canada
P.O. Box 6000
Montreal, Quebec H3C 3A8
e-mail: [email protected]
website: www.radio-canada.ca/Ombudsman/

Prime MInister Stephen Harper
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Phone: 613-992-4211
Fax: 613-941-6900
EMail: [email protected]



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
A photo of Kim Tucci at 25 weeks gestation Erin Elizabeth Photography
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

News,

‘Little miracles’: Mom gives birth to naturally-conceived quintuplets after refusing ‘selective reduction’

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
Image
An ultrasound of the five different compartments, each with its own baby, inside Kim's womb.

AUSTRALIA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A 26-year-old Australian mom has given birth to five healthy babies, all conceived naturally, after refusing the doctor’s advice that she must abort three of them in order to give the remaining two a better chance at life. 

“After my initial ultrasound I was told I could consider the selection method to give 2 babies the best chance in life,” wrote mom Kim Tucci in a Facebook post last September. 

“I watched a YouTube video on the procedure and I cried. I could never do that! Was I selfish for not giving two the chance of 100% survival? All I knew is that I already love them and that every heart beat I heard I connect with them more. For me life starts when a heart starts beating and all I know for sure is that I will do whatever it takes to bring them into this world healthy,” she wrote. 

Last Thursday Kim and her husband Vaughn welcomed the five new members into their family — one boy and four girls —increasing the number of their children from 3 to 8. The babies were born at 30 weeks, 10 weeks early, due to insufficient space in Kim’s womb. They weighed on average about 2.5 pounds. 

The quintuplets’ story began last March, after Kim and Vaughn had been trying for six months to conceive just one more child for their family. Due to health complications, Kim wondered if she would ever become a mother again. 

After what she thought was an extra long cycle, she decided to take a pregnancy test. 

“I was feeling tired and a little nauseated and thought I would take a pregnancy test just to get the ‘what if’ out of my head. To my shock and utter excitement it was positive,” she wrote on a Facebook post.

The parents got the shock of their lives when doctors confirmed in an ultrasound examination that there was not one baby, but five. 

“After a long wait for the ultrasound we finally went in. The sonographer told me there were multiple gestational sacks, but she could only see a heart beat in two. I was so excited! Twins!”

“I was moved to another machine for a clearer view and had the head doctor come in and double check the findings. She started to count, one, two, three, four, five. Did i hear that correctly? Five? My legs start to shake uncontrollably and all i can do is laugh. The sonographer then told me the term for five is ‘quintuplets,’” Kim wrote.

Even though Kim began to feel stretched to the limit with all those human lives growing inside her, she chose to focus on her babies, and not herself, referring to them as “my five little miracles.” 

“It's getting harder as each day passes to push through the pain, every part of my body aches and sleeping is becoming very painful. No amount of pillows are helping support my back and belly. Sometimes I get so upset that I just want to throw my hands up and give in.”

“Sometimes my pelvis becomes so stiff I can barely walk and my hips feel like they are grinding away constantly. I'm finding it hard to eat as I basically have no room left in my stomach, and the way it is positioned it's pushed all the way back with the babies leaning against it.” 

“My skin on my belly is so stretched its painful and hot to touch. It literally feels like I have hives! No amount of cream helps relieve the discomfort. I have a lot of stretch marks now. Dealing with such a huge change in my body is hard.” 

“Is it all worth it? Yes!!!! I will keep pushing through,” she wrote in one Facebook post days before the babies were born. 

The newborns' names are Keith, Ali, Penelope, Tiffany, and Beatrix. They were born at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Subiaco, Western Australia. Mother and babies are reported to be doing well. 



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Jordanian Prince Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al-Hussein, the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights UN Photo/Paulo Filgueiras
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

News

UN rights chief tells Catholic countries to legalize abortion over Zika virus: bishops and cardinal react

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

GENEVA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- The United Nations, following the lead of international abortion activists, is now urging Latin American countries hit by the mosquito-borne Zika virus to lift restrictions on abortion for pregnant women who have contacted the virus and whose pre-born children may be at risk for birth defects, including having smaller than normal heads. 

The UN human rights office said today that it is not enough for South American countries to urge women to postpone pregnancy without also offering them abortion as a final solution. 

“How can they ask these women not to become pregnant, but not offer… the possibility to stop their pregnancies?” UN spokeswoman Cecile Pouilly told reporters. 

UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said that governments should make available contraception and abortion services.

“Laws and policies that restrict (women’s) access to these services must be urgently reviewed in line with human rights obligations in order to ensure the right to health for all in practice,” he said.

But Brazil’s bishops strongly asserted yesterday that efforts should be made to eradicate the virus, not the people who may be infected by it. 

The disease is “no justification whatsoever to promote abortion,” they said in a statement, adding that it is not morally acceptable to promote abortion “in the cases of microcephaly, as, unfortunately, some groups are proposing to the Supreme Federal Court, in a total lack of respect for the gift of life.”

Honduras Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has also come out strongly against the notion of “therapeutic abortions” as a response to the problem. Unlike Brazil where abortion is legal in the case of rape or health of the mother, abortion remains entirely illegal in Honduras.

“We should never talk about ‘therapeutic’ abortion,” the cardinal said in a homily at a February 3 Mass in Suyap. “Therapeutic abortion doesn’t exist. Therapeutic means curing, and abortion cures nothing. It takes innocent lives,” he said. 

While the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an international public health emergency February 1 on account of concerns over the virus, critics have pointed out, however, that not one death as resulted from the virus. Even on WHO’s own website the virus is described in mild terms. 

“It causes mild fever and rash. Other symptoms include muscle pain, joint pain, headache, pain behind the eyes and conjunctivitis. Zika virus disease is usually mild, with symptoms lasting only a few days,” the website states. “To date, there have been no reported deaths associated with Zika virus,” it added. 

Critics suspect that the crisis is being manipulated to advance an anti-human agenda on the pre-born. 

“Is Zika, actually, a hideous virus that threatens to spread uncontrollably across the world creating an army of disabled children with tiny heads and low IQ’s? Or might this be a willful misinterpretation of the scarce data to manipulate public opinion and legislatures?” wrote pro-life critic Mei-Li Garcia earlier this week.

“It becomes very clear that the publicity surrounding this story has a very little to do with medicine and a lot to do with a convenient crisis that is being used by those pushing for the legalization of abortion around the world,” she wrote.



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
JStone / Shutterstock.com
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

News,

Hillary’s litmus test for Supreme Court picks: They must ‘preserve Roe v. Wade’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

DERRY, NH, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - Hillary Clinton has a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees - several, in fact. At a Democratic event on Wednesday, Clinton unveiled her criteria in selecting a judge for the nation's highest court.

“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests," she said.

"We’ve got to make sure to preserve Roe v. Wade, not let it be nibbled away or repealed,” she said.

There have been over 58,000,000 abortions since the 1973 court ruling legalizing abortion in all 50 states, according to National Right to Life.

That echoes her recent call to arms speech before Planned Parenthood last month, when she stated that taxpayers must fund abortion-on-demand in order to uphold the "right" of choice.

“We have to preserve marriage equality,” Clinton said, referring to last summer's Obergefell v. Hodges case, a 5-4 ruling that redefined marriage nationwide. “We have to go further to end discrimination against the LGBT community."

Her views differentiate her from the Republican front runners. Ted Cruz has called the court's marriage ruling "fundamentally illegitimate," and Donald Trump told Fox News Sunday this week that he would "be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things." Marco Rubio has said he won't "concede" the issue to the one-vote majority.

All Republican presidential hopefuls say they are pro-life and will defund Planned Parenthood.

Her husband, Bill Clinton, raised the makeup of the Supreme Court early last month in New Hampshire, saying it receives "almost no attention" as a campaign issue.

On Wednesday, Hillary said "the next president could get as many as three appointments. It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.”

Clinton said her judicial appointees must also reverse the Citizens United ruling on campaign finance and oppose a recent decision striking down a portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In 2013's Shelby County v. Holder, justices struck down Section 4(b) of the act, which said that certain states and jurisdictions had to obtain permission from the federal government before changing their voting laws.

At one time, most politicians frowned upon any "litmus test" for judicial nominees, emphasizing the independence of the third branch of government. "I don't believe in litmus tests," Jeb Bush told Chuck Todd last November.

But with the rise of an activist judiciary in the middle of the 20th century, constitutionalists have sought to rein in the power of the bench.



Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook