March 06, 2015

#No2Trudeau: Cross-country pro-life campaign targets Justin's "extreme" abortion stance

Brian LilleyRebel Co-Founder
 

At the Manning Networking Conference in Ottawa, I talked to Campaign Life Coalition's Alissa Golob about their new grassroots pro-life campaign: #No2Trudeau.

Canadian Catholics have traditionally voted for the Liberal Party.

However, that party's leader -- self-described Catholic Justin Trudeau -- is "so extreme on abortion" that Campaign Life is sending two young people across the country to raise awareness about his pro-choice views.

Golob told me that #No2Trudeau will be "the largest pro-life campaign in Canadian history."

She also stressed that it is NOT associated in any way with the Conservative Party of Canada.

JOIN TheRebel.media for more news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else

GET INVOLVED in our 100% grassroots crowdfunding campaign and help us bring you more stories like this one!


Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-03-09 10:39:56 -0400
Daniel your point is correct. Anyone who idolizes Mao Tse Tung and was raised in a household where Nazi’s were admired is bound to be coloured by his upbringing. The message of death to the unwanted is diametrically opposed to the message to value life. The Conservative agenda which values mothers and babies and funds their health and well being is exactly opposed to Liberal and NDP doctrine of death to the unwanted.
commented 2015-03-09 10:18:46 -0400
Just the liberal progressive agenda , more taxes , death to the unwanted , death to those who like Margueret Sanger called the weeds of society . The love of power for that kind of demagogue always end up bad when we study history . Their concepts worth more then the people therefore concepts come first and people pay the price . It was part of nazi germany political agenda death and ultimate power.
If you love death look at what he stand for , if you love life look somewhere else.
commented 2015-03-08 22:23:09 -0400
Discovered something said by a fairly well known politician of the past which today would probably disqualify him from running under the banner of Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party:
“You know, at some point you are killing life in the fetus in self-defense – of what? Of the mother’s health or her happiness or of her social rights or her privilege as a human being? I think she should have to answer for it and explain. Now, whether it should be to three doctors or one doctor or to a priest or a bishop or to her mother-in-law is a question you might want to argue…You do have a right over your own body – it is your body. But the fetus is not your body; it’s someone else’s body. And if you kill it, you’ll have to explain.”
The above quote comes from another Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and another Trudeau, Pierre E. Trudeau (quoted in The Montreal Star, May 25, 1972).
commented 2015-03-08 20:57:39 -0400
Marjorie, good suggestion, and while not a turn-off, not really a turn-on either, kind of bland. Doesn’t say anything about the political/philosophical slant of the site. That’s why I suggested FreeCanada (right up Ezra’s alley) or TheRight. But someone may have a better suggestion. Maybe something that incorporates your internet news idea with my up-front political slant ideas. Keep ’em coming, folks.
commented 2015-03-08 20:48:00 -0400
How about INC, Internet News of Canada; or is that going to turn some off as well?
commented 2015-03-08 14:40:05 -0400
I have no problem with someone of strong faith who wishes to live their life according to their religious beliefs. Some of the greatest people I know are of strong Christian belief. However, it becomes a problem when some people to try and push those beliefs on others who might not feel the same way, especially when it effects public policy.
commented 2015-03-08 14:27:33 -0400
There is a big difference between people who are practicing Catholics who follow their religion versus the people who just simply consider themselves Catholic. I’d make a wager that the majority of Canadians today whom identify themselves as Catholic are from the latter.
commented 2015-03-08 14:22:36 -0400
Well said Robert. But the truth is people will always have, and be granted, the free will to accept or reject God. And as long as they reject Him they will be free to redefine whatever they want; especially the intrinsic worth of life. It will die the death of a thousand redefinitions.
That is why, as you must know it is written, this world must come to pass and be made new.
commented 2015-03-08 14:16:30 -0400
William Wiser: my religious beliefs do not cloud my judgement, they clarify what is right and what is not. Human life has value, period and someone deciding they do not “want” a child does not change in any way the inherent value that life has. A human being is a human being, scientifically, factually, and in faith. There is no other definition of when life begins than at conception. It’s a scientific fact. A life is a life whether it is mine, yours, or the unborn. The only question is whether we choose to respect that life or not.
commented 2015-03-08 14:13:03 -0400
William wiser: Calling yourself Catholic does not make you Catholic. sounds like you know lots of non-Catholics.
commented 2015-03-08 14:09:31 -0400
Robert Barnes, you’re letting your religious beliefs cloud the issue. Determining our public policy on religious beliefs is not a good idea. That’s how it works in some muslim countries with their Sharia Law.
commented 2015-03-08 14:03:25 -0400
Many people who identify with being Catholic today are a far cry from what was considered a catholic a generation or two ago. I know plenty of people today who call themselves “Catholics” who don’t attend Mass, don’t practice Lent, use birth control, masturbate and have pre-marital sex. They might believe in Jesus Christ being their saviour but catholicism is more then just being a Christian.
commented 2015-03-08 14:01:43 -0400
The problem here is everyone is focused on the woman. This is not a women’s issue, this is a children’s issue. The child has a right to life, regardless of how it was conceived. The child is not guilty for the sins of its mother or father, and has an inalienable right to life. That right to life does not depend on whether its mother "wants"it or not. We are not valued as human beings based on another person’s feelings or thoughts. We all have inherent value given by God.
commented 2015-03-08 13:58:30 -0400
Ron voss: Anyone who is not in communion with the church has “ex-communioned” , is, excommunicated themselves. And anyone who knowingly accepts the body and blood of Christ in communion when they are not in communion as committed a mortal sin, and has condemned themselves. So, who would others not do the same? Because they would condemn themselves to eternity in hell. The Church does not determine who is not in communion. Jesus Christ does. The issue for the church is one of scandal. If a priest is providing him the bread/blood knowing of his lack of communion, that creates scandal that decreases others trust in the church. This is why people are formally “excommunicated”, not to punish them (they did that already) but to protect the Church from scandal. I agree he should be kicked to the curb, and I agree that not kicking him there is creating an embarrassing scandal.
commented 2015-03-08 13:40:51 -0400
Some valid points made by all.

I am in favour of women having the choice of an abortion in cases of rape because I feel I have no right to tell a woman she would have to carry a child under such circumstances. I can’t see this issue as black and white as some of you since I have to consider the circumstances of the conception. Some of these rape victims could have been barely into their teenage years or sometimes even younger. Also, they could have been molested by a family member which would result in a child being born with severe mental or physical disabilities.

I agree that late term abortion is wrong since the fetus is too developed at that point. However I’m not against abortions in the first trimester since I believe the fetus hasn’t developed enough at that point to feel pain although I am sure plenty of you will disagree with me on that point. I agree that life begins at conception but the word “life” is a fairly broad term and I wouldn’t call a few week old embryo a “baby”.

I also agree that plenty of men and women are irresponsible with their sexual activity and could have easily prevented an unwanted pregnancy instead of having an abortion. I don’t not feel abortion should be used as a from of birth control and I also agree that taxpayers should not be on the hook for the procedure.

If you would like to call me “pro-death” then I would probably agree with that title since I am in not against abortion, capital punishment or euthanasia under certain circumstances.
commented 2015-03-08 12:30:34 -0400
William Wiser, let’s for argument sake agree that the correct position was to allow for but not compel abortion in the case of rape. Of the 100,000 plus abortions committed in Canada each year, the less than 1% of cases where rape was involved would reduce the number of abortions to 1000 per year. The 100,000 plus abortions committed in regards to the potential risk to the life of the mother would constitute 3% or another 3000 abortions. William, by limiting abortion to your criterion, only 4000 abortions would be committed and 96,000 plus lives would be spared. I would agree that many people see this as a grey area.
William, the facts speak for themselves. A very low percentage of cases relate to your point. The pro -death people are misleading the public by means of a diversionary tactic through the use of the intentional device of disambiguation. (throwing in a red herring) Many well meaning folks really don’t know how disproportional and small the "grey’ area is. The fact is that right now abortion is permitted in Canada throughout all 9 months of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever, all funded by taxpayer dollars. Abortions have long been used as a backup for failed birth control or the lack thereof.

If you want to begin to understand how repugnant late term abortion is, you can find pictures of tortured to death babies on the net. They will turn your stomach. You will see pictures of Emma, Liam, Olivia, Ethan, Zoe, Jack, Lily, William, Hannah, Benjamin and I could go on and on. These are not blobs of flesh. They are unique distinct persons who, in a position of utter vulnerability, had their lives horrifically taken from. No wonder the so called pro-choice group does not like it when these pictures are shown publicly. All of it taking place behind closed doors by men in white coats. Pictures of the horrors of Auschwitz are valuable. They help the human race to be so disturbed so that nothing like this will be allowed to happen again. But many want to cover up and deny when it comes to abortion, especially later term abortions, because the killing is still going on.

For Trudeau to demand that members of “his” party must be pro-death is just plain wrong. No grey area here. No ambiguity. Just plain disgustingly wrong.
commented 2015-03-08 10:13:02 -0400
Robert Barnes, re “Justin Trudeau is no Catholic. A wolf in sheep’s clothing. It is not up to the church to excommunicate him, he has already excommunicated himself”. If Justin Trudeau has a home parish and attends Mass, then he has not, in your words, “excommunicated himself”. Presuming that he has a home parish and attends Mass, I repeat, if the Catholic Church does not excommunicate Trudeau, a public figure who has made his position well known, why should not then the other Catholic parishioners, likewise, conclude that it would be okay for them to hold a similar position as well? Otherwise, “Don’t you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough?”
commented 2015-03-08 06:44:24 -0400
Trudeau might be a Catholic in a very loose manner, or perhaps in name only, but his view of life, certainly is not. Abortion, has many issues which I have tried to wrestle with for years and in the end, the question for me is, “Does the baby have rights?” I have concluded legally the baby has rights and as such, abortion should be limited …. No matter how I tried to resolve the issue, life trumps death, hence no matter how the baby was conceived, the baby exists- hence rights are inherent. Certainly this is a thorny issue, but Trudeau is not up to being Prime Minister by any measure and abortion on demand is simply wrong as it places no value on the baby or life!
commented 2015-03-07 23:43:35 -0500
Justin Trudeau is no Catholic. A wolf in sheep’s clothing. It is not up to the church to excommunicate him, he has already excommunicated himself.
commented 2015-03-07 23:20:41 -0500
Ok Gail got it. And William I suppose in my current position, given the circumstances, I would keep my wife(not stone her to death) and I would accept the child (not have it ripped from inside her) although I did have my given son delivered by c-section. Thank the doctors for that. They presented to me a life that showed me a love that I had never known before
commented 2015-03-07 23:10:19 -0500
Peter Babich – The documentary you mention concerning Kermit Gosnell was successfully crowd funded and work has begun. Phelim McAleer and his wife Ann have taken their time and picked a person whom they feel will be an excellent director. I believe they are working on the script now. Here is a link you can have a look at:

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gosnell-movie
commented 2015-03-07 22:58:30 -0500
Listen. I favour every strategy that keeps Trudeau out of office. Go No2Trudeau!
commented 2015-03-07 21:10:21 -0500
William Wiser, you got big ones to post that view here.

Rape is a tough one. Tougher still for some women who are raped is the huge pressure from family, doctors, social workers to abort. A woman who has been raped may find herself totally unsupported to bear the child if she desires. People are appalled and condemn women who want to bear a child conceived in rape. They accuse her of liking it. They tell her she will bear a monster. Another rapist. Even police do that.

My issue is with those children born to families that don’t want them. Who cares for them? What is their future? A life in prison?

Oh, I know we can’t forecast. But the world’s population doubled over the last 100 years. What will life be like in another 100 years? Will hoardes of us be starving?

Already Pakistan and California have encountered extreme water shortages.

I don’t know the answer. I just don’t think it’s my place to judge. Seems like war is doing the most killing in the world. Don’t know what sort of homicide is worse.
commented 2015-03-07 20:38:15 -0500
Thanks Kenneth. I should receive my copy now. Unbelievable. How much else we don’t hear from the media. I first learned of this story from Church Militant .com news
commented 2015-03-07 18:01:26 -0500
My view is, it doesn’t matter how the baby was conceived or whether it could cause a burden. Who should get to decide who lives or dies?
commented 2015-03-07 17:11:35 -0500
I am pro abortion for a couple of reasons. First; if my wife, daughter or sister were raped and became pregnant I feel they have the right to terminate the pregnancy. Secondly, if a woman’s life was in danger from bringing a pregnancy to term. In both cases the abortion should take place as early in the pregnancy as possible, before the fetus’ nervous system is fully developed.
commented 2015-03-07 14:17:30 -0500
Peter, a docudrama is being made about it by the team (headed by Phelim McAleer I believe) that made “Fracknation”. It is being crowdfunded. If you would like to help fund it (over 25,000 people have donated so far), google Gosnell movie and find the crowdfund website for it. They will appreciate any help you give them very much. I’m going out right now so I don’t have time to find it for you.
commented 2015-03-07 13:33:38 -0500
I would like to know whatever became of the Kermit Gosnell scandal. The abortionist that murdered and dismembered babies from failed abortions all sanctioned and hidden by the government. Labelled as histories worst serial killer, the subject was touched on by the former Sun News Network and maintained a documentary would be forthcoming. Just wait or forget about it?
commented 2015-03-07 13:09:45 -0500
Donald Allan, I am with you. In terms of the language, I am “pro-choice”. I am however definitely against abortion or taking the life of a child. The unborn baby is a separate unique person. The words “pro-choice” were cleverly chosen to obfuscate the matter. Everyone wants to believe that they have the freedom of choice in as many matters relating to themselves as possible. There is nothing wrong with that. But, when someone believes that they have the right to take the life of a Second Party / Another Person and call that pro-choice, they are self deluded at best.
From time to time I have witnessed in the news a story where a defenseless animal like a dog or a cat has been abused, starved, beaten or killed. The vast majority of the people watching this on the news are up in arms, angered, even outraged. But why? Its only an pet. So what if it suffered and died? It was THEIR animal and the person that inflicted these violent acts had the free choice to do whatever they wanted to do with THEIR animal. Right??? Sounds as logical as it gets but most people still express outrage against people who abuse their own animals. Why? We all instinctively know in our guts that people who purposely cause malicious harm, abuse and suffering to animals are psychopaths. Famed Dr. Albert Schweitzer said, “Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea of worthless human beings.” Kill Fluffy = outrage. Kill your Baby = silence. Strange situation we have here. If you recognised your neighbor’s face on the 6 o’clock news standing with the cuffs on beside his severely malnourished beaten bloodied now dead Collie dog, you would be disgusted. This guy probably won’t be getting an invite to your next barbecue. But many seem to be so OK with abortion.
The pro-abortion group has created their own language in order to obscure what they are actually doing and thereby to justify their actions. The dead babies aren’t the only victims. The maternal instinct in women is strong. Women who abort their own babies are “damaged goods”. There are no “take backs” once a life is taken. Steal a car, smash a window, burn down an empty house. It is still possible to make restitution. Take a baby’s life. No restitution possible.
Trudeau, by moving into an area where only God has the right to tread, in demanding that everyone running for the Liberal party is pro-death, has crossed a line, a line over which there are no take backs. No leader, be it a king or a politician has that right. Its bad enough that he believes it himself but to impose this on the consciences of others has truly crossed the line. What does the word ‘liberal’ mean anyways? Perhaps Justin should get out a dictionary.

But, I might be all wrong about this. Justin really does look sharp in a finely tailored suit, doesn’t he.