Not by Miss M this time but by the Doggerel Party of Canada with input from the Corgis.
The complaint revolves around a chihuahua service dog but I won't give away the fun.
Body of the Live Blog Here
Additional commentary on What is a Real Dog? (Corgi point of view) and HRC in general.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Monday, November 30, 2009
The British are Crazy
And I'm not talking about the sitcoms.
Evenin' all is not allowed lest it confuse foreigners. Youth, boy, girl, businessman, are words non grata. Also bad words, ""child or youngster" indicate "unreliability or dishonesty""
Birthday cake is banned for being unhealthy.
UK flag is not allowed on ID cards.
Cake sales are shut down in case anyone slips near the tables or dies from eating nut-infested cake that was labeled "May contain nuts".
Oh yes, and Christmas is winterval.
Evenin' all is not allowed lest it confuse foreigners. Youth, boy, girl, businessman, are words non grata. Also bad words, ""child or youngster" indicate "unreliability or dishonesty""
Birthday cake is banned for being unhealthy.
UK flag is not allowed on ID cards.
Cake sales are shut down in case anyone slips near the tables or dies from eating nut-infested cake that was labeled "May contain nuts".
Oh yes, and Christmas is winterval.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
New Moon
An article I wrote at the request of MercatorNet. For the record, it was not my first choice of topics but..
"The idea of vampire romance literature has always appealed to me about as much as a prolonged visit to the dentist; avoid if at all possible. Unfortunately it was not possible, so I settled down to watch New Moon in a mood that just about matched the warm and slightly flat Ginger Ale I took in with me for sustenance. Things did not improve. I usually come out of the dentist feeling better than I walked out of that movie theatre. At the very least I don't feel as nauseated....."
Read the rest of the article here. http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/new_moon/
"The idea of vampire romance literature has always appealed to me about as much as a prolonged visit to the dentist; avoid if at all possible. Unfortunately it was not possible, so I settled down to watch New Moon in a mood that just about matched the warm and slightly flat Ginger Ale I took in with me for sustenance. Things did not improve. I usually come out of the dentist feeling better than I walked out of that movie theatre. At the very least I don't feel as nauseated....."
Read the rest of the article here. http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/new_moon/
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Myth Busting
Answers to 12 pro-euthanasia arguments.
It’s my life, my death, my freedom, my choice, my right!
I don’t want to die hooked up to a bunch of machines or forced to stay alive when I know it’s time to pass on.
There are already reports of euthanasia being carried out all over the country. Wouldn’t it be safer to have it regulated by the government?
Having the right to die, even if I never exercise it, gives me the control I need to have a peaceful death.
By the Catholic Organization for Life and the Family (www.colf.ca)
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Roundup: Catching Horses and Shrivelling Weeds
Playing Hockey with Fishy Sticks
Demon Incarnate Harper Doesn't Care Enough About Global Warming
In light of the above news:
"Environmental activists and opposition members said Wednesday that the absence of the Canadian prime minister at the Copenhagen conference would demonstrate a lack of interest.
“This is the most important international negotiation that Stephen Harper will ever be involved in,” said John Bennett, the executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada, an environmental group. “To stay away is bordering on criminal.”"
Tolerance is the Virtue of the Man Without Convictions - G.K. Chesterton
Some people don't have that problem, thankfully. (Note: I have not read the book, but I do read many of his columns)
Smoking and Facebook can be Hazardous to Your Health
Telling people to watch what they post on the internet is starting to sound as old and "duh" as telling people that smoking isn't good for you. However it bears repeating as even people who should have known better seem to keep getting caught.
Hitler's Ghost Still Lives
“We recognize in our German basic law about philosophical and religious conviction and that parents have rights, but the basic law also includes that it is the state’s role to educate all children,” Judge Drier
http://www.hslda.org/hs/international/Germany/200911250.asp
Civil Service: They Can't Fire You but They Could Always Make You Compost Constable
That's right, dig through the muck to see if there is any inappropriate material in there. A poll, as SDA would say, just waiting to go wrong. Actually, it already has. Look on the left sidebar.
Baby Speaks Out on Behalf of Responsible and Caring Burglar
Okay so not exactly.
10 Tries and No Still No Lasting Victory, Better Luck Next Time. I Don't Think.
When this goes back to the CHRT Canada will be watching very, very closely.
Oh Sure, Blame the Canuckies
Unfortunately this guy doesn't seem to remember the result of the Canadian crisis. A startling show of Canadian pro-government solidarity (or at least anti-election/coalition/Quebec solidarity) in which the Governor-General supported the Canadian will against the "big bad separatist-run coalition". No anti-monarchy backlash that I remember. Then again, maybe the British are more anti-monarchy than Canadians. Canadians just don't think about it.
How Large a Share?
In general however I think the system needs massive restructuring. How on earth can it be good for people to be put in the middle of nowhere where there are no jobs and given enough money to live on (albeit badly)? Talk about a guaranteed way to destroy any human being.
Never Again; So Don't Ban Hate Speech
It's not rocket science. Don't give your enemies free publicity, don't reward behaviour you don't want to encourage, and don't give the guys with the guns power to shut off dissent. Which part of this is hard to understand?
Words Can Kill
And the words of irresponsible, evil, right-wing extremists can kill people downright dead. Or not... Then again maybe this is an example of Pre-Traumatic Republican Phobia Disorder. Maybe the census worker committed suicide because he was so scared by all the irresponsible, evil, etc, etc right-wingers that he decided to commit suicide before they could kill him. Hey it's about as credible as half the stuff you can find on the internet. The other half is less credible.
The HRC Latest Front in the War Against Hate
Then again, maybe not. We shall see.
UK Family Courts Make HRC Look Transparent and Fair
And the HRC cannot do anything compared to what a family court can do. An amazing series of articles. Parents reading this, don't worry too much. They said that Canadian courts were good.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
10 Commandments of Coalition Building
For Jim R, thanks for the feedback.
1. Focus on one issue, no polygamous coalitions.
2. Expect, and prepare for, internal fighting.
3. Expect, and prepare for, outside attempts to create internal fighting.
4. Language is your greatest ally and greatest enemy. Use with kid gloves.
5. Think before you leap.
6. Money makes the world go round.
7. Use every clever, devious tactic at your disposal. No one likes a bull in a china shop.
8. Communicate your message as broadly as possible, in as many different forms as possible, using as many different types of media as possible.
9. Be gracious when possible.
10. Prepare for setbacks, discouragement, and burn-out. They will happen. Promise.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Where Have All the Heroes Gone? They've Gone to the Psychiatrists.
(Just for the record. This was written before the Fort Hood shootings, so the rather dark irony in the title is purely coincidence. Promise)
They were mostly suits. Civil servants who were there because they had nothing better to do, and the matter involved their department. A group of badly prepped politicians sat around the table, asking nice, polite little questions. A few witnesses answered the softballs, read out prewritten talking points regardless of context, in the better moments made a few nice points, and engaged in personal slurs against people who had the audacity to make personal slurs against them. Day number whatever in another cumbersomely named Parliamentary Committee.
They were debating one of the most important issues in modern Canada. There were no youth chanting slogans, only a bare handful taking notes. The rest were too busy yelling at politicians over yet another environmental bill. A few hundred yards away freedom of speech was balancing on the line. They didn't know, they probably wouldn't have cared if they did.
They try to assert their individuality. They scream their defiance at the government.
Let's talk about utopia.
Grim, concrete, an atmosphere of fear and intimidation so thick that it begins to slowly choke the life out of you.
Sterile, white, conformity, no pleasure, no pain, a syringe, the lawns never have weeds.
Colourful, drugs, sex, drunken conformity of sodden pleasure, monotonous fluctuation.
Utopias are like pizzas, everyone has their own variety. But one theme that runs through many of them is that this is a No-Hero Zone. You don't need many heroes where everything slips by like pistachios on a conveyor belt. No drama, no moments of crisis. The bad ones disappear, taken by mysterious giant hands from above. The good ones run their course and land with a self congratulatory little rattle in the appropriate bag.
Destiny.
Heroes track mud in on the clean floor. More often than not they attack the postman, mistaking him for a burglar.
Criminals are so much simpler to deal with.
"...the image of a hero has shifted in our modern age to a man who is flawed, dark, and mysterious. We are reluctant to accept a heroic calling. These days purity and virtue are , to say the least, questionable. Cincinnatus, Galahad, and Roland have been replaced by anti-heroes such as Dirty Harry, Jason Bourne, and Rambo." Frank Miniter
So now we get heroics perpetrated by aberrations. Tortured, tormented, criminal, and very high-tech.
"...to believe in the heroic makes heroes." Benjamin Disraeli
What happens when we no longer want heroes? Can we eradicate heroism?
They have stars in their eyes and passion in their hearts. It seems the eternal prerogative of youth to be heroic. Or perhaps I should have said, it is their prerogative to feel a nameless need for something more.
We cannot quite eradicate "causes", so we will find them causes to our liking. Busy work.
Soon they grow tired of playing with toys. They get a job, buy a Starbucks.
If there are no standards, can we ever really rebel, ever really defend?
"In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines... By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything." Chesterton
We are immersed in relativism and cynicism. There is no good and evil, no right and wrong, no up or down, no standard beyond expediency and we're not even sure about that. In this claustrophobia of equality can we be expected to look up to a hero? Can we believe in anything above or beyond ourselves? Did we kill the fairy tale when we made androgyny our god?
Can you die for something that is not a good? I dare say that most people when they dream of heroics, dream of the moment when the dragon's blood spills around their fingers, burning, staining. The Princess looks on from a safe distance and a red Ferrari. They want to fight for something worth fighting about. They don't want to be the sort of person that would make others consider legalizing high-level anti-depressants just so they don't have to listen to his grating moans.
Anti-heroes, heroes who do not know why they do what they do, heroes who are almost as repulsive as the evil they are fighting, heroes with all the attractive glamour of an oozing infection, have a hard time inspiring heroism. Real Heroism.
Is that why we are being given anti-heroes? Why we are given evil and told to admire it? Why suicide bombers are being elevated, and those who euthanize others portrayed as martyrs?
"Today, there is a tremendous cynicism about the capacity of the individual to impact the broader world, and the truth is that you probably can't make that big of a difference. But storytelling has always been the terrain where someone could. We need someone who can level a mountain so that we can step over an anthill... What I have noticed in the Millennials- the people who are coming of age in this new millennium-is a sadness about the possibility of heroism." Barbara Nicolosi
Swirl from the golden apple and the heroism of the good through the vortex into a grey room. Walk a few steps. Vapours start to form about your head. Turn around. There is a joke to be told. Tell it. Laugh because you aren't supposed to.
Embrace heroism, live it. Track mud in on the floor. Better yet, mop it up.
They were mostly suits. Civil servants who were there because they had nothing better to do, and the matter involved their department. A group of badly prepped politicians sat around the table, asking nice, polite little questions. A few witnesses answered the softballs, read out prewritten talking points regardless of context, in the better moments made a few nice points, and engaged in personal slurs against people who had the audacity to make personal slurs against them. Day number whatever in another cumbersomely named Parliamentary Committee.
They were debating one of the most important issues in modern Canada. There were no youth chanting slogans, only a bare handful taking notes. The rest were too busy yelling at politicians over yet another environmental bill. A few hundred yards away freedom of speech was balancing on the line. They didn't know, they probably wouldn't have cared if they did.
They try to assert their individuality. They scream their defiance at the government.
Let's talk about utopia.
Grim, concrete, an atmosphere of fear and intimidation so thick that it begins to slowly choke the life out of you.
Sterile, white, conformity, no pleasure, no pain, a syringe, the lawns never have weeds.
Colourful, drugs, sex, drunken conformity of sodden pleasure, monotonous fluctuation.
Utopias are like pizzas, everyone has their own variety. But one theme that runs through many of them is that this is a No-Hero Zone. You don't need many heroes where everything slips by like pistachios on a conveyor belt. No drama, no moments of crisis. The bad ones disappear, taken by mysterious giant hands from above. The good ones run their course and land with a self congratulatory little rattle in the appropriate bag.
Destiny.
Heroes track mud in on the clean floor. More often than not they attack the postman, mistaking him for a burglar.
Criminals are so much simpler to deal with.
"...the image of a hero has shifted in our modern age to a man who is flawed, dark, and mysterious. We are reluctant to accept a heroic calling. These days purity and virtue are , to say the least, questionable. Cincinnatus, Galahad, and Roland have been replaced by anti-heroes such as Dirty Harry, Jason Bourne, and Rambo." Frank Miniter
So now we get heroics perpetrated by aberrations. Tortured, tormented, criminal, and very high-tech.
"...to believe in the heroic makes heroes." Benjamin Disraeli
What happens when we no longer want heroes? Can we eradicate heroism?
They have stars in their eyes and passion in their hearts. It seems the eternal prerogative of youth to be heroic. Or perhaps I should have said, it is their prerogative to feel a nameless need for something more.
We cannot quite eradicate "causes", so we will find them causes to our liking. Busy work.
Soon they grow tired of playing with toys. They get a job, buy a Starbucks.
If there are no standards, can we ever really rebel, ever really defend?
"In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines... By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything." Chesterton
We are immersed in relativism and cynicism. There is no good and evil, no right and wrong, no up or down, no standard beyond expediency and we're not even sure about that. In this claustrophobia of equality can we be expected to look up to a hero? Can we believe in anything above or beyond ourselves? Did we kill the fairy tale when we made androgyny our god?
Can you die for something that is not a good? I dare say that most people when they dream of heroics, dream of the moment when the dragon's blood spills around their fingers, burning, staining. The Princess looks on from a safe distance and a red Ferrari. They want to fight for something worth fighting about. They don't want to be the sort of person that would make others consider legalizing high-level anti-depressants just so they don't have to listen to his grating moans.
Anti-heroes, heroes who do not know why they do what they do, heroes who are almost as repulsive as the evil they are fighting, heroes with all the attractive glamour of an oozing infection, have a hard time inspiring heroism. Real Heroism.
Is that why we are being given anti-heroes? Why we are given evil and told to admire it? Why suicide bombers are being elevated, and those who euthanize others portrayed as martyrs?
"Today, there is a tremendous cynicism about the capacity of the individual to impact the broader world, and the truth is that you probably can't make that big of a difference. But storytelling has always been the terrain where someone could. We need someone who can level a mountain so that we can step over an anthill... What I have noticed in the Millennials- the people who are coming of age in this new millennium-is a sadness about the possibility of heroism." Barbara Nicolosi
Swirl from the golden apple and the heroism of the good through the vortex into a grey room. Walk a few steps. Vapours start to form about your head. Turn around. There is a joke to be told. Tell it. Laugh because you aren't supposed to.
Embrace heroism, live it. Track mud in on the floor. Better yet, mop it up.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Renouncing Islamism
A reporter interviews ex-Islamist fanatics to find out what made them do what they did. Why they turned to this radical form of Islam.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/renouncing-islamism-to-the-brink-and-back-again-1821215.html
Various reasons are cited, racism featuring prominently. Poverty interestingly enough, not, at least in these cases. Isolation and alienation, imposed either from without or within their communities seemed to be also very significant.
One interesting quote:
"I can trace something that seems genuinely new: an ex-jihadi way of looking at the world, that carries lessons about how to stop Western Muslims sinking into jihadism.
As children and teenagers, the ex-jihadis felt Britain was a valueless vacuum, where they were floating free of any identity.
Ed Husain, a former leader of HT, says: "On a basic level, we didn't know who we were. People need a sense of feeling part of a group – but who was our group?" They were lost in liberalism, beached between two unreachable identities – their parents', and their country's. They knew nothing of Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or the other places they were constantly told to "go home" to by racists.
Yet they felt equally shut out of British or democratic identity. From the right, there was the brutal nativist cry of "Go back where you came from!" But from the left, there was its mirror-image: a gooey multicultural sense that immigrants didn't want liberal democratic values and should be exempted from them. Again and again, they described how at school they were treated as "the funny foreign child", and told to "explain their customs" to the class. It patronised them into alienation.
"Nobody ever said – you're equal to us, you're one of us, and we'll hold you to the same standards," says Husain. "Nobody had the courage to stand up for liberal democracy without qualms. When people like us at [Newham] College were holding events against women and against gay people, where were our college principals and teachers, challenging us?"
Without an identity, they created their own. It was fierce and pure and violent, and it admitted no doubt.....
He says the Saudi message is particularly comforting to disorientated young Muslims in the West. "It tells you – you're in this state of sin. But the sin doesn't belong to you, it's not your fault – it's Western society's fault. It isn't your fault that you're sinning, because the girl had the miniskirt on. It wasn't you. It's not your fault that you're drug dealing. The music, your peers, the people around you – it's their fault."
Just as their journeys into the jihad were strikingly similar, so were their journeys out. All of them said doubt began to seep in because they couldn't shake certain basic realities from their minds. The first and plainest was that ordinary Westerners were not the evil, Muslim-hating cardboard kaffir presented by the Wahabis. Usman, for one, finally stopped wanting to be a suicide bomber because of the kindness of an old white man."
Monday, November 16, 2009
How to Run a Coalition...
Lessons I learned from the Wilberforce Weekend Ottawa, more or less.
1. Form a governing body that oversees smaller sub-committees covering a full range of departments: communication, organization, ethics, legal, finance, etc, etc, etc.
2. Expect and prepare for division and internal fighting. You can either be into cage fights or you can have a coalition. Not both.
3. One coalition - One issue/project. Otherwise you will not only have cage fights but WW3. Either that or a coalition of one.
4. Don't get distracted. Focus is essential.
5. Let's repeat it again, focus. Repeat I am focusing, I am focusing, I am focusing... Twenty times before breakfast.
6. Use the enemy's weapons and outwit them at their own game. The Bible commands us to be serpents.
7. Whatever your budget projection is, multiply it several times.
8. Learn to use language like loaded weapons. C.A.R.E.F.U.L.L.Y (Bloggers that goes for you to)
9. Find the most credible spokesperson for your cause. In other words a sympathetic figure. If you think that is a cheap trick and all debates should be argued on pure logic and principle, I hear there is a nice Ivory Tower in a remote spot for sale.
10. Analyze your enemy. If he has semi-automatic Uzis and you don't, raid his weapons dump.
11. Expect your opponents to fight really, really dirty. If you can't handle misquotes, abuse, name-calling, slander, why aren't you gardening?
12. Expect someone or other in the group to shoot their mouth off sooner or later and prepare to play damage control. Just remember that we still jail people for assault so take some emotion-control therepy before you confront them.
13. Communication is the quintessence of any activism.
14. The devil is in the details. You thought lawyers were into precise language and interpretation? You have to make them look like the Little League. Particularly when reading your enemy's documents.
15. Remember that the enemy will be using point 14. Use a thesaurus when you write.
16. Young people like to get involved in stuff, on their own terms. Reading between the lines that means social media.
17. It's not just who you know. It's only 99% who you know.
18. Meet your audience where they are at and with what they will understand.
19. Feed people, it makes them happy.
20. Know what you're doing. If you don't know, learn.
21. Did I mention the word accountability yet?
22. If you want to play the game like a stupid, vicious, amateur, bigoted.... Please join the enemy. We need you there, not here.
23. People are only robots in sci-fi movies. In all other dimensions they tend to burn out and need copious amounts of encouragement and support.
24. If you dislike asking people for money you might as well put yourself in handcuffs.
25. What is your objective for tomorrow? Next week? Next month? Next year? Next decade? Next century? Why don't you know?
26. Figure out who is ahead and by how much when it comes to influencing public opinion and getting their message out. If the difference is big you can afford to take more risks than if it is 50/50.
27. Don't be afraid of law courts. After all your opponents are going to drag you into them if you don't drag them in first.
28. Oh and you aren't supposed to say opponents, instead you could try fellow citizens of the opposing viewpoint. Personally I prefer enemy forces of evil... but they are probably right that there are more helpful ways to phrase it.
29. Study history... then study it some more.
30. Please don't reinvent the wheel, please?
31. If you can shortcut, do so. That is the basis of progress after all.
32. Identify the moral high ground. Then take it. Quickly.
33. Actions speak louder than words. Well, almost. Don't let the opposition get the words but don't let them monopolize actions either.
34. You have the support of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Regardless of what your position is seemingly. So use it.
35. If your neighbor can't understand and support your position in under 90 seconds, you're dead. You just haven't finished moving yet.
36. Be gracious. It helps.
37. Don't let your opponents pick the battleground.
38. Have your facts. Know them. Deploy them. Put them into fortune cookies if you have to.
39. The only place where it is all mountain tops is the Himalayas, and even they go up and down. You will have setbacks. Promise.
40. Use every available means to get your message airtime (within reason....) and invent new ways if you can.
37. Don't let your opponents pick the battleground.
38. Have your facts. Know them. Deploy them. Put them into fortune cookies if you have to.
39. The only place where it is all mountain tops is the Himalayas, and even they go up and down. You will have setbacks. Promise.
40. Use every available means to get your message airtime (within reason....) and invent new ways if you can.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The Reason that Miss Marprelate was AWOL..
She was at The Manning Centre for Building Democracy's Wilberforce Weekend Ottawa, an anti-euthanasia conference which she had the privilege of event blogging.
The euthanasia topic is coming to the front in Canada because of Bill C-384 which is seeking to legalize it.
One of the most important points this conference stressed was how uninformed and misinformed people are about this life-and-death issue. It is extremely important that everyone get clear and accurate information about it so they understand what euthanasia is (and is not), that almost no one needs to suffer unbearable pain, how euthanasia opens vulnerable people to abuse and coercion, etc.
70% of people in Canada support euthanasia, almost certainly many support it because they don't understand what the word means and they are beset by fears. Fear of being alone, fear of pain, fear of dying, fear of abuse, fear of losing control, fears of every type. Most, if not all, of these issues can be solved without killing the patient and that is what we need to focus on.
The euthanasia topic is coming to the front in Canada because of Bill C-384 which is seeking to legalize it.
One of the most important points this conference stressed was how uninformed and misinformed people are about this life-and-death issue. It is extremely important that everyone get clear and accurate information about it so they understand what euthanasia is (and is not), that almost no one needs to suffer unbearable pain, how euthanasia opens vulnerable people to abuse and coercion, etc.
70% of people in Canada support euthanasia, almost certainly many support it because they don't understand what the word means and they are beset by fears. Fear of being alone, fear of pain, fear of dying, fear of abuse, fear of losing control, fears of every type. Most, if not all, of these issues can be solved without killing the patient and that is what we need to focus on.
I must say I was very impressed with the quality of the conference, it was just brilliantly put together. You came away from it feeling like you knew a great deal more about what it takes to launch a successful campaign or coalition, on any issue, than when you came in.
They also weren't joking about attracting key stakeholders, the people who came to this conference were mostly professionals or key activists.
Event Blog Sections:
Introductions and Welcome
Overview
Amazing Grace
Sub-Committees
Principles of Effective Participation in Advocacy Campaigns
Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia Debate Canada
Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia Debate Quebec
Advocacy Campaign Strategy
Advocacy Campaign Planning Meeting
Event Blog Sections:
Introductions and Welcome
Overview
Amazing Grace
Sub-Committees
Principles of Effective Participation in Advocacy Campaigns
Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia Debate Canada
Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia Debate Quebec
Advocacy Campaign Strategy
Advocacy Campaign Planning Meeting
Event Blogging the Wilberforce Weekend: Introductions and Welcome
Please Note: This is a summary of the events and speeches in my own words for educational, information, and entertainment purposes only. It is not the speakers' exact words and should not be taken as such. It also may contain errors due to the nature of the medium. I am not responsible for any of them, use at your own risk and consult the official videos and/or audio record if you want to verify or quote anything.
The conference starts off in the Jazzy Restaurant at Ottawa U with lovely hors d'oeuvres, A few minutes before six o'clock Wes McLeod and Shannon Joseph welcome participants from 7 provinces and 4 states.
The conference is important for it's role in bringing together key players from related disciplines.
They introduce Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Preston Manning of The Manning Centre
Then they introduce the various people who contributed to the conference and give them a gift of appreciation:
Michele Boulva of the Catholic Organization for Life and Family
Janet-Epp Buckingham of the Laurentian Leadership Centre
Margaret Cottle, Palliative Care in Vancouver
Ugo Dodd, board member of Canadian Physicians for Life
Eric Lowther of the Association for Faith and Service
Derek Miedema, researcher for the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
Barbara McAdorey, researcher and co-ordinator for the Parliamentary Pro-life Caucus and Canadian Physicians for Life
Dan Scott of Tyndale University College
Sarah Sonne of 4MyCanada
Peter Stockland of the Centre for Cultural Renewal
Rhonda Wiebe of the Ethics Committee of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities
Also thanks the volunteer help from Ottawa
Alex Schadenberg takes the mike next to give a brief introduction.
He is pleased to be here. The Wilberforce Weekend hoped to draw 100 people and they are happy to have achieved that goal.
People are here from different perspectives. From disability advocacy, medical, pro-life, religious, everyone can discuss things openly wherever they come from. We want to examine issues according to the Wilberforce model, focusing on cultural shift, changing the culture. Whatever our perspective on these issues it will be productive to examine them together. This is what we need to do as a society. We need to be open to moving with this issue. New ideas are good. We can be effective if we get different ways to see and present ideas. We are looking to sow seeds of change.
This is not just an information session, you are here to contribute and you need to feel that you can. I have gained from this and hopefully so will this country.
Event Blogging the Wilberforce Weekend: Overview of the Wilberforce Weekend Ottawa
Please Note: This is a summary of the events and speeches in my own words for educational, information, and entertainment purposes only. It is not the speakers' exact words and should not be taken as such. It also may contain errors due to the nature of the medium. I am not responsible for any of them, use at your own risk and consult the official videos and/or audio record if you want to verify or quote anything.
Wes McLeod
We come here to advance a transformative cultural policy.
Democratic and biotech forces are raising end of life issues high on Canada's scene. There are many forces that support advocacy groups at every level. We are training for outcome based advocacy. Wilberforce's campaign is one example of sound advocacy principles. We ought to study this campaign and apply these strategies for transformative cultural and public policy. This is an important weekend because it allows for synergy between key stakeholders working in different capacities and fields.
Our objective is to have an open and creative learning atmosphere where we can hear from many angles and people. Here, next steps will be proposed and you will have opportunities to volunteer for teams and standing teams that deal in these matters.
We will have a variety of sessions including watching the film Amazing Grace, strategy development, and lectures.
They will also be making audio and video recordings of the event.
The conference continued with a singing of O Canada, using a film produced by the National Film Board.
Preston Manning spoke next.
Welcome and thanks. We are watching a film depiction of one of the most successful advocacy campaign in our history. Wilberforce and his friends were held together by a single purpose. Tomorrow Mr. Manning will give a lecture extracting from the movie Amazing Grace what made Wilberforce's campaign successful.
In this conference we will constitute ourselves as a strategy planning group, as if we were launching a campaign. It is proto-campaign planning. We will divide up into small groups which deal with financing, media, etc. The leaders at the end will meet as if they were a campaign team. This is to draw out your wisdom on these matters and to give people the experience of what it is like to be on a campaign. We will need to keep discipline in these committees, people in politics want to discuss strategy and so forth into the night but you need to keep on track if we are to get anything done.
There are a few things to watch for in the movie Amazing Grace. Wilberforce and Pitt were 22 and 21 when Pitt became Prime Minister. Young people can do amazing things. The second thing is that people in ethical campaigns want all or nothing, but Wilberforce went after strategic objectives, abolishing the slave trade not abolishing slavery.
You should also notice the personal struggle that Wilberforce underwent, changing his beliefs. If you are trying to change someone it helps if you have changed your mind too.
In Amazing Grace it is shown in one Parliamentary House for dramatic effect but it really happened in two Houses, Commons and Lords. There were also committees, small groups that were even more important than the Houses.
Wilberforce also did not make personal enemies. Some of the MPs who voted for his bill in the end were violently opposed to it before. Wilberforce broadened his circle by embracing people who would disagree on everything except ending the slave trade.
You should also notice the personal struggle that Wilberforce underwent, changing his beliefs. If you are trying to change someone it helps if you have changed your mind too.
In Amazing Grace it is shown in one Parliamentary House for dramatic effect but it really happened in two Houses, Commons and Lords. There were also committees, small groups that were even more important than the Houses.
Wilberforce also did not make personal enemies. Some of the MPs who voted for his bill in the end were violently opposed to it before. Wilberforce broadened his circle by embracing people who would disagree on everything except ending the slave trade.
Event Blogging the Wilberforce Weekend: Amazing Grace
Please Note: This is a summary of the events and speeches in my own words for educational, information, and entertainment purposes only. It is not the speakers' exact words and should not be taken as such. It also may contain errors due to the nature of the medium. I am not responsible for any of them, use at your own risk and consult the official videos and/or audio record if you want to verify or quote anything.
The movie opens with William Wilberforce driving along the road. He is sick but he stops to intervene when he sees a horse being ruthlessly beaten.
He has been fighting slavery for years with no success. Now he has nightmares about slavery, haunted by his failure to stop it. Tormented about what he ought to be doing but isn't.
At that point he meets a girl by the name of Barbara.
The movie goes back in time to Wilberforce's early days in Parliament, before he became involved in slavery debates. He is arguing about England's strategy in the American Revolution. Afterwards he joins other MPs in a game of cards. As one of his opponents runs out of money, he offers his slave in lieu of money. Sickened at the whole incident, Wilberforce leaves. Pitt comes out after him and tells him that he needs to change himself before he can change the world. Wilberforce decides to take a stand, goes back into the club and standing on the table, sings Amazing Grace.
In a new scene, Wilberforce has a religious experience. He was lying on the wet grass and marvelling at nature because "God found me". It is inconvenient, he has a political career, but he just wants to marvel at spider webs.
Wilberforce thinks of becoming a preacher instead of a politician but he is not sure. Pitt tells him that he plans to become Prime Minister. No one of our age has ever taken power says Wilberforce. Counters Pitt, Which is why we are to young to know that certain things are impossible. So we'll do them anyway. Do you want to use your voice to praise God or change the world?
Pitt invites several guest to come to Wilberforce's home for dinner. Wilberforce doesn't know why they are coming. The guests show him chains and tell him about the slave trade. They tell him that he can do both the work of God and the work of a political activist by opposing the slave trade. Pitt hopes to get Wilber to stay in politics because Pitt wants to become Prime Minister and needs Wilberforce's help.
Wilberforce is unsure. He goes to visit his old pastor, John Newton, who wrote "Amazing grace" and is an ex-slave trader. John Newton is mopping the floor, dressed in rough cloth. Newton says that Wilberforce has work to do. He should not choose a life of solitude. Newton lives with the ghosts of 20,000 slaves. Wilberforce wants to hear about the slave trade but Newton can't face telling his testimony. He tells Wilberforce to fight the slave traders. He warns Wilberforce that he will get dirty, he will dream it, but for God's sake to do it, stop them.
Thomas Clarkson, a revolutionary and anti-slavery activist visits. When he comes in Wilberforce is in box made to the dimensions of a slave berth.
The movie moves forward in time again. Wilberforce gets a letter from Jamaica about the horrific conditions there.
He meets Barbara again. They decide to have an argument but find out that they agree on everything. Barbara tells about how she followed his campaign as a girl and enthusiastically supported all of it. Wilber gets angry because after all the petitions and efforts they have had no success. Barbara urges him to talk about the campaign.
The movie goes back in time again. Wilberforce goes to the India dock with Equiano to see a slave ship.
Wilber makes his first speech about slavery in the house of commons. There are vigorous protests from other MPs. They protest that slavery brings in great revenue and if the British stopped then the French would just take over.
Wilberforce calls a meeting of supporting MPs and activists. Almost no one shows up. He says we are talking about truth, so should spread truth everywhere in every way. Fox, a vigorous opponent of Wilberforce in other matters, shows up to support him.
Pitt then gets elected Prime Minister.
A group of MPs are taken on a yacht with a music group and lavish refreshments. As they sail along they are taken beside a slave ship on which 400 out of 600 slaves died on the journey to the Indies. They see chains and smell the stench of death from the ship.
Wilberforce's friends spent the winter gathering evidence. Equiano published his book which sold like wildfire. People boycotted slave sugar. The activists had to fight rumours and gossip about them.
Wilberforce is taken ill with colitis as he begins his campaign.
They brought up the bill a year later. The MPs bring objections, that there is no evidence that the Africans object to the trade. or that the ordinary English people object. Wilber brings a petition signed by 390,000 people. Fox, to great objection, signs his name. The opponents ask for time to examine all the signatures. They are given time.
Dundas, another MP, suggests that change should be made gradually so as not to bankrupt the nation.
Clarkson gets involved with the French Revolution. This undermines Wilberforce because now he is associated with a violent foreign revolution and accusations of treason are considered substantiated even though Wilberforce refuses to support any revolution.
God has set before Wilberforce two great aims; the abolition of the slave trade and the reformation of society. Wilber is taken very ill. Becomes addicted to opium to control the pain. This is now five years after the first bill is brought forward.
Pitt warns Wilberforce about his revolutionary friends. Threatens him.
The threat of revolutionary France undermines all their work. Wilberforce is called a seditious traitor and no one will listen. Supporters faded away, died, were ineffectual, no one took an interest. Wilberforce basically gives up
Now the two time periods of the movie join. Barbara and Wilberforce get married. Pitt comes to the wedding and he and Wilberforce heal the breach between them. Pitt says that times are changing and things may be better for Wilberforce.
Wilberforce goes to visit Newton again who is writing his reminiscences. Newton recalls the beauty of the Africans' names. Says that they were the humans, the English were the apes.
Wilberforce finds Clarkson, gathers his friends. He is going to fight again. His friend comes from the Indies with statistics, accounts, etc. He tells how in the Indies there are rebellions. They are looking to Wilberforce and England for hope. Says that they are not doing enough. It is not a game.
Wilberforce's friend suggests an idea for winning the war against slavery. They pass a seemingly innocuous law which says that French ships sailing under American flags can be seized. This seemingly dull bill, so patriotic, so harmless, will strike a deathblow to slavery because 80% of all slave ships fly the American flag to avoid privateers. If the bill passed, no one, English or French, would be able to ship slaves because of the danger of seizure. It would bankrupt most of the slavers.
They get a boring MP to bring it forward so no one knows that the anti-slavery group is behind it. They arrange for most of the opposition MPs to be at a race track and they carry the bill.
Wilberforce breaks his addiction to laudanum because he cannot feel the joy of their victory.
William Pitt dies but he arranges his succession to make sure that Wilbur can win the battle against the slave trade.
They bring another bill to the house of commons. This time, it passes 283 to 16.
Event Blogging the Wilberforce Weekend: Information on Sub-Committees
Please Note: This is a summary of the events and speeches in my own words for educational, information, and entertainment purposes only. It is not the speakers' exact words and should not be taken as such. It also may contain errors due to the nature of the medium. I am not responsible for any of them, use at your own risk and consult the official videos and/or audio record if you want to verify or quote anything.
Sub-committees you can join.
Research - Looks at the opposition and public opinion
Legal - Constitutionality issues
Medical and Palliative Care - Offer constructive alternatives
Ethics - Moral issues and principles
Communications and Media - Politics is 90% communication. Unless a politician can see in 90 seconds how to explain to the public your issue, you are done.
Grassroots Democracy - Mobilizing large groups
How to Build a Coalition - Form a core group that won't get divided.
Organization and Administration - Databases, social networking
Funding - How to raise money. To move a national poll 3-4% takes around 5 million dollars, if you are lucky
Spiritual Resources - Wilberforce's campaign lasted for over 50 years. Sustaining people in bad times
We have people from across Canada and the States. This work has international implications, America affects Canada. We are part of an international world, our ideas have big implications. There are people in our groups from different perspectives, respect that.
Event Blogging the Wilberforce Weekend: Principles of Effective Participation in Advocacy Campaigns
Please Note: This is a summary of the events and speeches in my own words for educational, information, and entertainment purposes only. It is not the speakers' exact words and should not be taken as such. It also may contain errors due to the nature of the medium. I am not responsible for any of them, use at your own risk and consult the official videos and/or audio record if you want to verify or quote anything.
Preston Manning has been in Parliament and founded two political parties that became official opposition. He published a book called "Think Big". He is CEO of The Manning Centre for Building Democracy and is involved with the Fraser Centre. He also speaks on many different issues. He and his wife have 5 children and 10 grandchildren.
Preston Manning takes the mike.
Wilberforce's anti-slavery movement was a campaign to right a great social evil. One of the most successful advocacy efforts in British history, it stretched over 50 years.
There were many heroes who were motivated to this work by their faith
Sharpe the legal mind
Clarkson the organizer
Moore was into education
John Newton the 6:20 Amazing Grace
Stevens lawyer and strategist
Clapham Group which provided spiritual support
The Parliamentarians especially William Wilberforce
Most were young, evangelical Christians from the Wesley/Whitfield revival.
This is coming from a religious perspective but these lessons can be good for people of other faith convictions.
Our agenda for this lecture is to extract principles and lessons from the movie Amazing Grace.
The Great Guideline "Be wise as serpents and gracious as doves" Matt. 10:16
This applies whatever your faith conviction. During the first year of Jesus's ministry He was the only public figure, His disciples just followed and listened. After a year He sent out His disciples to do work on their own but before He sent them out He gave them a talk which included this verse.
The serpent is the image of the devil and the dove is the image of the Holy Spirit, in other words this is saying be smart as the enemy but gracious as God.
Don't be vicious as snakes and dumb as pigeons.
Jesus was once asked about paying taxes to Caesar. This was a loaded question because whatever His answer He would be seen as either a traitor to the Jews or to the Romans. Strategy point one: He didn't answer right away. Sometimes shutting up is the best response. He asks for a coin. Then He asks who's picture is on the coin. His answer is "Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's" This was a quick sound bite and was very shrewd.
A Gracious Resolution
Slavery was a taboo subject in the house of Lords. Some moral crusaders would have rushed into there cursing the trade and everyone involved in it. Pitt said that this would make sure the subject was never raised again for 20 years.
This was the resolution. "That this House at it's earliest convenience, give consideration to the circumstances surrounding the slave trade."
This was very mild and gracious. Pitt was very good at the serpentry part.
William Wilberforce was gracious. "I mean not to accuse anyone but to take the shame upon myself in common indeed with the whole Parliament of Great Britain .... We are all guilty."
Many in the House of Lords were benefitting from the trade if not actual slave owners
Stephen came up with the idea to divide the slave traders by bringing forward an anti-French bill that included anti-slavery issues.
What can we learn from our past mistakes in handling of moral issues like abortion. We went for all or nothing in the abortion debate.
Two-Fold Test: Is it wise? Is it gracious?
Two-track approach
The suppression of the slave trade by legal means
The reformation of manners by social actions and service. Factory conditions, cruelty to animals, etc.
People believed his legal approach because he showed his care in other practical ways.
Seize the High Moral Ground
Begin the initiate by identifying and empathizing with the suffering that you seek to alleviate. People want to start with first moral principles or the legal issues. That is a mistake. Don't start there with the public.
A saying is "We don't care how much you know until we know how much you care."
When the people feel that you care they will listen to your principles and laws. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus got his authority from being in the community for 30 years and being able to identify with them.
In the case of the current bill before Parliament, there were six speakers who spoke after the bill was presented. Only one started by addressing suffering and that was the other Bloc member.
The anti-slavery activists used a case where 130 slaves were thrown overboard in a storm. They used blood encrusted chains and ex-slaves with brands. The abolitionists started by using compassion, then moved to principles.
.
The public is motivated by fear in their support of euthanasia. They are afraid of dying more than death, there is a fear of abuse, fear of loosing control, fear of pain. We need to identify with the fear and sympathize. Then we can get the moral credibility to speak.
Building a Coalition
William Wilberforce "bringing together ...men who are likeminded and who may at some time or other combine ...for the public good" is a principle "of first rate importance."
We need to bring together people who agree on a few issues even if they disagree on a whole bunch of other things. What is the common ground of people who oppose euthanasia? Clever opponents will try to blow coalitions apart. They throw thins in the middle to create division. With the abolitionist there were lines between Quakers and people like Fox.
You need to figure out how you can defend your coalition from attack. Be preemptive, anticipate division and figure out how to deal with it ahead of time.
Support the campaigner with spiritual resources.
There will be discouragements. Opponents of William Wilberforce gave his supporters tickets to an opera and so they lost an important vote. The French revolution hurt them badly because the abolitionists were identified with it. Wilberforce was depressed and ill. Clarkson opted out for over a decade.
Personal spiritual resources, Wilberforce had "The Great Change". He would have said you need a personal inner change before you can ask others to change
Counsel of Godly pastors like John Newton
Fellowship of a support/accountability group. The Clapham group was called a sect but we would have called it a support group. They probably kept Wilberforce in the game when things got tough. This is key to long term success.
Side note: A copy of the talk with PowerPoint Slides will be available.
Be clear on objective/strategy. Distinguish between immediate objectives and your ultimate objective. Don't go for all or nothing
Utilize the tools of democracy, almost all of which were invented or used during this campaign
Boycott, pamphlet, petition, public meeting. Today there is social networking.
Shift the discussion/decision to the most favourable arena. Wilberforce wanted to shift the power from the House of Lords where they would never win to the House of Commons.
Today we need to shift from the Supreme Court to Parliament
Meticulous research and preparation, prepare your case and for your campaign meticulously and thoroughly.
There are a few people at each end on any issue and about 60% floating around in the middle
Use existing law (e.g. the Charter) someone got a judge to declare slavery illegal using existing law before Parliament passed it's bill.
Learn to use the Charter. Our opponents use the charter but we should and we can. This Bill is actually unconstitutional because it legislates medical practice which is a provincial matter.
Address the Myths that sustain the status quo, like pain is unmanageable.
Stick to your key messages.
Speak with one voice. Figure out who is the most credible spokesperson. (not politicians) and get the messages coming from those people.
Watch your language, invent new language if you must.
Be Prepared for Setbacks
Q&A
Question 1 By phrasing this as a Christian thing you have marginalized people like the questioner and also marginalized the issue in Canada. You say that the anti-slavery was Christian but there is actually another side. This should be phrased as a social not religious issue
Answer 1 I thought I made it clear at the beginning. This campaign is instructive and has a faith dimension, but the lessons from this are relevant whether you are coming from a faith background or not.
Q1 Suggests cut back on Christian content in slides
A1 Good advice.
Q2 There is a difference between Wilberforce and our situation because euthanasia is illegal but slavery was legal. So it is really the opposite situation.
A2 Good point but to get Parliament to do what you want, whether to change or keep a law, is the same. It is unfortunately easier to rally people against things than for things. This is a challenge when trying to get support for things like palliative care.
Q3 We need to change from negative to positive debate, enhancing support and allying fear.
A3 That will be a challenge for small groups, to frame the debate in a positive way.
Q4 Our opponents have their own religion and use a Wilberforce campaign. In New Hampshire we had success because we said euthanasia supports elder abuse. This is a public safety issue which appeals across the board.
'
'
Q5 Fletcher, who is disabled, wrote a National Post article about why he is sitting out of the debate. He supports euthanasia but thinks that is unacceptable until we offer more alternatives to euthanasia.
A5 Fletcher is an example of a credible spokesperson because he has been in that situation. In his book he talks of his fear of going to hospital lest someone think he is not worthy of life.
Q6 This speaker has a disability and has to deal with this issue. In the disability movement we reject the word "suffering" because it is dehumanizing. I get nervous with using the word suffering, when we do so we create pitiable people. We have been before the Supreme Court many times. We think that should be a single issue, short term coalition. Don't drag in abortion and so forth.
A6 This addresses two things, campaign strategy like long term or short term, narrow or broad as well as finding a good spokesperson.
Q7 About identifying with suffering. He has close family with disabilities. He can silence opponents because of that but it shuts down the debate and brings it back to just the issue of choice.
A7 Opponents use suffering so we need to either identify too or change the battleground
Q8 Works with people with Down Syndrome. We are facing a generation coming up who will never know someone with Down Syndrome because of prenatal diagnosis. We support fair and balanced information. We encourage people with Down Syndrome to talk about their marginalizing experiences and their vulnerability within the medical system.
Q9 In answer to the first questioner. This is going to be lead mostly by people of faith, most are Christian but not all. We should create a multi-faith coalition. I am Catholic but my greatest support in same-sex marriage opposition was from Muslims. We want non-believers in our coalition. However whether we like it or not it will be guided by people of faith, which is more than just Christians.
Q10 Questioner 4 feel marginalized by this. She is not a practicing religious person but is a leader in her area.
A10 We need different perspectives. Faith based arguments work best for some people, secular arguments for others. We don't need division.
Event Blogging the Wilberforce Weekend: Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia Debate in Canada
Please Note: This is a summary of the events and speeches in my own words for educational, information, and entertainment purposes only. It is not the speakers' exact words and should not be taken as such. It also may contain errors due to the nature of the medium. I am not responsible for any of them, use at your own risk and consult the official videos and/or audio record if you want to verify or quote anything.
Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
This is about building a coalition which he has been doing successfully for 10 years.
We need to be focused on the issues. Some people are concerned about many different social issues but we cannot mix them up. There is no other way to form an effective coalition.
We need to identify with the people whom this directly affects.
We need to focus on the issue in our sessions later on.
We are bringing parallels from the Wilberforce campaign. Although euthanasia is illegal, we are fighting social opinion.
We need to define what euthanasia. "Aid in dying" is not a good term for euthanasia, everyone wants aid when they are dying.
Directly and intentionally ending the life of another person by active or passive means for supposed reasons of "mercy' is the definition of euthanasia. The only thing that separates euthanasia and murder is the motive of "mercy".
Assisted suicide is direct and intentional involvement in ending the life of another person. You encourage suicide, or give a lethal prescription, but the patient actually kills themselves.
Withholding or withdrawing aggressive medical treatment is not euthanasia or assisted suicide.
Neither are unintentional overdoses or unintentional deaths.
This is about the direct and intentional cause of death.
I get calls all the time from people who think that their friend or mother is being euthanized by a hospital. Unless it is direct and intentional it is not euthanasia or assisted suicide.
Terri Shaivo was not dying. She had no medical condition causing her death. She was just cognitively disabled and was dehydrated to death. Terri died because she was denied basic care. Morally this was euthanasia.
We are not opposed to natural death, just to killing.
We are not opposed to ending medical treatment that lacks benefit, is overly aggressive, burdensome, etc. This is not about just pulling out a plug. There is much misinformation even among educated people on this point.
We are opposed to imposing limits on medical care that is beneficial. This particularly affects people who are disabled and so forth.
Jocelyn Downie says there is no difference between killing and letting someone die. That is a lie. If you die a natural death that is not euthanasia.
We must remain clear and focused or we will lose the debate. Same-sex marriage or abortion does not belong in a euthanasia debate. Take lessons from these campaigns but keep those issues out.
We need to deal with the issue of choice. Choice is a lie. It is a mantra. This is about the rules that a physician must follow to directly and intentionally cause death.
If it is about choice, we will lose the battle.
Bill C-384 was introduced by Francine Lalonde. The debate will be on Dec 1 and the vote will be Dec 2, 2009.
Safeguards in this bill
Patient must be 18. This is unconstitutional and would be struck down by courts. If this is a social good it cannot be limited by age.
Patient must have tried or expressly refused treatment. This means nothing because you will always have either tried or refused treatment.
You must be in severe physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief. It is not only people with terminal conditions. It can include chronic depression.
You must appear to be lucid, you might not be lucid but you just have to appear to be so. This wording is so broad you could drive a hearse through it.
This is not about choice.
In the morning I appear to be lucid, that doesn't mean I'm lucid. I have six children.
A medical practitioner must be provided with two written requests by someone appearing to be lucid. They must be more than 10 days apart and expressly state the person's free and informed consent to opt to die.
Euthanasia support groups facilitate euthanasia and will line up two physicians for you where needed.
People can have terrible moments of shock where they find out they are dying. If assisted suicide is legal they could be killed during their worst moment.
This Bill does not define terminal illness.
It does not require a witness at the time of death.
It does not restrict death tourism. In Switzerland it costs about $12,000 to die. Someone could make a lot of money. This is not about equality and choice.
The bill does not create a right to die with dignity.
Alex met with Steven Fletcher and asked if he would feel right if his doctor had the right to kill him. Fletcher said "absolutely not"
It would allow people who are chronically depressed to get assisted suicide.
It is a danger to people with disabilities.
We need to contact MPs about this especially to Ignatieff who has not announced his stand.
Tracy Latimer was perceived as better off dead. They didn't talk about what she could do. She went to school everyday by bus. The assistant said at the trial that Tracy was a happy child who was not suffering.
She loved music and she had a radio that she could turn on and off when she wanted to. She liked windshield wipers and outdoor fires. She was dehumanized. This dehumanized people with disabilities
The Gronigen Protocol is about euthanasia of children under 12. There was a court case where a child with severe spina bifida was euthanized. They didn't give the baby pain medication or surgery. 22 newborns with spina bifida were euthanasia over a certain period of time. There were five criteria for the euthanasia of infants. There must be a certain diagnosis and prognosis. Must be hopeless and unbearable suffering (which might include disability.) An independent doctor must agree. Parents must give informed consent, but parents are too shocked and emotionally involved to give informed consent at that time. The procedure must be carried out in accordance with the accepted standard. There must be an after the fact report.
Three groups of infants can be euthanized.
Group 1 are going to die. Why cannot we just let them die naturally.
Group 2 Need significant treatment, grim prognosis. Should they be treated or killed?
Group 3 are not dying but have suffering that is sustained, severe, and cannot be relieved. They said that it is the babies who would otherwise live but whose lives would be wretched to the extreme who need euthanasia the most. What does wretched to the extreme mean?
This is about eugenics and cost-containment. It is also about possible future suffering.
Malphurs and Cohen study. This concerns cases where one "loving" spouse kills a spouse and then commits suicide. In almost all of these cases the murder victim resisted death.
Some said that euthanasia has nothing to do with depression. To their surprise depression was associated with more euthanasia requests. In 2007 49 people in Oregon were euthanized. No one received psychological assessment.
Royal Society of Canadian put together a report on end of life decisions. 4 out of 6 panel members were radical supporters of euthanasia.
Nadia was a 18 year old student at Carlton University. She went online trying to seek help for her depression but she found someone who pretended to be a young female nurse. They created a "suicide pact" and Nadia killed herself. The predator tried to get Nadia to kill herself on webcam so he could watch.
We require a wider, stronger, effective, and unified organization. Alex is committed to winning this battle. We must accept our diversity. This must be a single issue coalition.
We are looking for people who are willing to build or work with a central organization that opposes euthanasia
We are confident that we will defeat this current euthanasia bill unless there is something unexpected.
We need more leaders
We need more speakers
We need more donors
We meed more workers
We need you
On Facebook most of our fans are young people. We ask how we can motivate young people. Young people can be motivated if you meet them where they are.
Question 1 Jocelyn Downing position is not lying, she is mistaken. Tracy Latimer was suffering from a dislocated hip, it was bad medicine that it wasn't corrected. Women do kill their spouses too by the way. They are equal opportunity homicidals. I'm a bachelor.
Answer 1 I shouldn't have said she is lying. I read her book and went to two of her lectures. She is very much in favour of euthanasia. She actually gave a government funded talk.
Q2 Two issues that are potential pitfalls ahead. With regard to "All or nothing", Francine Lalonde bill will lose because it is all or nothing. But we may face a much more reasonable bill later on, what then?
A2 There are some who say the current bill is too wide, others that there is not good enough palliative care, some just support euthanasia period.
Q2 But we need all or nothing because we can't have death.
Q2 You are speaking from the point of view of a doctor. As such your strongest and most personal point of view is this, that doctors are there to save life, to say they should kill changes them. Physicians need to start saying that.
Q2 We will need to oppose a moderate bill, it must be all or nothing.
Q2 Yes, that is a problem
Q3 What about extraordinary measures being removed without patients consent, that is euthanasia.
A3 That can happen. It is a huge concern in disability issues. This might be a huge ethical problem when some people die, but it is not actually euthanasia if someone dies a natural death.
Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
This is about building a coalition which he has been doing successfully for 10 years.
We need to be focused on the issues. Some people are concerned about many different social issues but we cannot mix them up. There is no other way to form an effective coalition.
We need to identify with the people whom this directly affects.
We need to focus on the issue in our sessions later on.
We are bringing parallels from the Wilberforce campaign. Although euthanasia is illegal, we are fighting social opinion.
We need to define what euthanasia. "Aid in dying" is not a good term for euthanasia, everyone wants aid when they are dying.
Directly and intentionally ending the life of another person by active or passive means for supposed reasons of "mercy' is the definition of euthanasia. The only thing that separates euthanasia and murder is the motive of "mercy".
Assisted suicide is direct and intentional involvement in ending the life of another person. You encourage suicide, or give a lethal prescription, but the patient actually kills themselves.
Withholding or withdrawing aggressive medical treatment is not euthanasia or assisted suicide.
Neither are unintentional overdoses or unintentional deaths.
This is about the direct and intentional cause of death.
I get calls all the time from people who think that their friend or mother is being euthanized by a hospital. Unless it is direct and intentional it is not euthanasia or assisted suicide.
Terri Shaivo was not dying. She had no medical condition causing her death. She was just cognitively disabled and was dehydrated to death. Terri died because she was denied basic care. Morally this was euthanasia.
We are not opposed to natural death, just to killing.
We are not opposed to ending medical treatment that lacks benefit, is overly aggressive, burdensome, etc. This is not about just pulling out a plug. There is much misinformation even among educated people on this point.
We are opposed to imposing limits on medical care that is beneficial. This particularly affects people who are disabled and so forth.
Jocelyn Downie says there is no difference between killing and letting someone die. That is a lie. If you die a natural death that is not euthanasia.
We must remain clear and focused or we will lose the debate. Same-sex marriage or abortion does not belong in a euthanasia debate. Take lessons from these campaigns but keep those issues out.
We need to deal with the issue of choice. Choice is a lie. It is a mantra. This is about the rules that a physician must follow to directly and intentionally cause death.
If it is about choice, we will lose the battle.
Bill C-384 was introduced by Francine Lalonde. The debate will be on Dec 1 and the vote will be Dec 2, 2009.
Safeguards in this bill
Patient must be 18. This is unconstitutional and would be struck down by courts. If this is a social good it cannot be limited by age.
Patient must have tried or expressly refused treatment. This means nothing because you will always have either tried or refused treatment.
You must be in severe physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief. It is not only people with terminal conditions. It can include chronic depression.
You must appear to be lucid, you might not be lucid but you just have to appear to be so. This wording is so broad you could drive a hearse through it.
This is not about choice.
In the morning I appear to be lucid, that doesn't mean I'm lucid. I have six children.
A medical practitioner must be provided with two written requests by someone appearing to be lucid. They must be more than 10 days apart and expressly state the person's free and informed consent to opt to die.
Euthanasia support groups facilitate euthanasia and will line up two physicians for you where needed.
People can have terrible moments of shock where they find out they are dying. If assisted suicide is legal they could be killed during their worst moment.
This Bill does not define terminal illness.
It does not require a witness at the time of death.
It does not restrict death tourism. In Switzerland it costs about $12,000 to die. Someone could make a lot of money. This is not about equality and choice.
The bill does not create a right to die with dignity.
Alex met with Steven Fletcher and asked if he would feel right if his doctor had the right to kill him. Fletcher said "absolutely not"
It would allow people who are chronically depressed to get assisted suicide.
It is a danger to people with disabilities.
We need to contact MPs about this especially to Ignatieff who has not announced his stand.
Tracy Latimer was perceived as better off dead. They didn't talk about what she could do. She went to school everyday by bus. The assistant said at the trial that Tracy was a happy child who was not suffering.
She loved music and she had a radio that she could turn on and off when she wanted to. She liked windshield wipers and outdoor fires. She was dehumanized. This dehumanized people with disabilities
The Gronigen Protocol is about euthanasia of children under 12. There was a court case where a child with severe spina bifida was euthanized. They didn't give the baby pain medication or surgery. 22 newborns with spina bifida were euthanasia over a certain period of time. There were five criteria for the euthanasia of infants. There must be a certain diagnosis and prognosis. Must be hopeless and unbearable suffering (which might include disability.) An independent doctor must agree. Parents must give informed consent, but parents are too shocked and emotionally involved to give informed consent at that time. The procedure must be carried out in accordance with the accepted standard. There must be an after the fact report.
Three groups of infants can be euthanized.
Group 1 are going to die. Why cannot we just let them die naturally.
Group 2 Need significant treatment, grim prognosis. Should they be treated or killed?
Group 3 are not dying but have suffering that is sustained, severe, and cannot be relieved. They said that it is the babies who would otherwise live but whose lives would be wretched to the extreme who need euthanasia the most. What does wretched to the extreme mean?
This is about eugenics and cost-containment. It is also about possible future suffering.
Malphurs and Cohen study. This concerns cases where one "loving" spouse kills a spouse and then commits suicide. In almost all of these cases the murder victim resisted death.
Some said that euthanasia has nothing to do with depression. To their surprise depression was associated with more euthanasia requests. In 2007 49 people in Oregon were euthanized. No one received psychological assessment.
Royal Society of Canadian put together a report on end of life decisions. 4 out of 6 panel members were radical supporters of euthanasia.
Nadia was a 18 year old student at Carlton University. She went online trying to seek help for her depression but she found someone who pretended to be a young female nurse. They created a "suicide pact" and Nadia killed herself. The predator tried to get Nadia to kill herself on webcam so he could watch.
We require a wider, stronger, effective, and unified organization. Alex is committed to winning this battle. We must accept our diversity. This must be a single issue coalition.
We are looking for people who are willing to build or work with a central organization that opposes euthanasia
We are confident that we will defeat this current euthanasia bill unless there is something unexpected.
We need more leaders
We need more speakers
We need more donors
We meed more workers
We need you
On Facebook most of our fans are young people. We ask how we can motivate young people. Young people can be motivated if you meet them where they are.
Question 1 Jocelyn Downing position is not lying, she is mistaken. Tracy Latimer was suffering from a dislocated hip, it was bad medicine that it wasn't corrected. Women do kill their spouses too by the way. They are equal opportunity homicidals. I'm a bachelor.
Answer 1 I shouldn't have said she is lying. I read her book and went to two of her lectures. She is very much in favour of euthanasia. She actually gave a government funded talk.
Q2 Two issues that are potential pitfalls ahead. With regard to "All or nothing", Francine Lalonde bill will lose because it is all or nothing. But we may face a much more reasonable bill later on, what then?
A2 There are some who say the current bill is too wide, others that there is not good enough palliative care, some just support euthanasia period.
Q2 But we need all or nothing because we can't have death.
Q2 You are speaking from the point of view of a doctor. As such your strongest and most personal point of view is this, that doctors are there to save life, to say they should kill changes them. Physicians need to start saying that.
Q2 We will need to oppose a moderate bill, it must be all or nothing.
Q2 Yes, that is a problem
Q3 What about extraordinary measures being removed without patients consent, that is euthanasia.
A3 That can happen. It is a huge concern in disability issues. This might be a huge ethical problem when some people die, but it is not actually euthanasia if someone dies a natural death.
Event Blogging the Wilberforce Weekend: Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia Debate Quebec
Please Note: This is a summary of the events and speeches in my own words for educational, information, and entertainment purposes only. It is not the speakers' exact words and should not be taken as such. It also may contain errors due to the nature of the medium. I am not responsible for any of them, use at your own risk and consult the official videos and/or audio record if you want to verify or quote anything.
Dr Andre Bourque
There is an issue that this is about choice, individual autonomy. There is a breakdown of human solidarity, we don't want to be dependent on anyone else.
We claim to want to fight youth suicide, then say suicide is a right. I am a doctor, I have the privilege and responsibility to give help and not to kill people.
This is also linked to evolution. We believe that euthanasia is about progress. Old people are against progress. Young practitioners don't want to be involved in a reactionary movement.
There was a quick survey done of doctors and 75% were in favour of euthanasia. The survey results are misleading. For one thing most were specialists, not generalists. It is in light of this that myself and five colleagues decided that we needed to react. We wrote a brief from a non-religious basis, because there is a total allergy against a religion and we would have alienated many people. We wrote it in French but it reads very well in English. However some in Quebec are very impressed by the surveys.
We couldn't present a brief with just five doctors so we decided to get 100 doctors, to be a choir singing against euthanasia. We went through the lists of medical faculty and managed to get that number without too much trouble.
We got lots of visibility as the only voice speaking against euthanasia. You begin to wonder who the opposition is, where it is hiding. We didn't find doctors opposing us too much. They are there but they are hiding. The College's statement in favour of euthanasia is irresponsible. They haven't consulted their members. They are attacking a long standing tradition and there is much confusion on the matter.
They say we use palliative sedation which is the same as euthanasia. It is not the same and it is almost never used.
We are taken hostages by a minority that we don't see very often. When you have worked as long as I have you see progress over time. When I studied we did not talk about end of life issues. We have seen remarkable progress, we have improved palliative care. Students today are getting much training that I never got. There is no comparison. We have palliative care specialists for one thing.
The population does not know what we do, that we can alleviate their pain. They have fears of imposing, of pain, of so much. These fears are accentuated by the problems people have getting care and finding a doctor. People feel that they will be all alone and won't have good healthcare.
It is not easy to confront patients who are in advocacy for euthanasia because you have to look at their eyes and suffering. However these people can be badly informed, they want euthanasia because they want to die peacefully. They don't know about the alternatives.
You can stop a disproportional treatment when it gets to that point and thus die a natural death.
There is a case of a person who had a degenerative disease. He wants a "pocket coupon" for when he has to leave his home. This person seemed to be quite happy and could move around but became sick as soon as he was on camera. He probably has 10-15 years of life ahead of him.
I ask people why they don't interview others like palliative care doctors who have been working in this area for decades. These doctors create systems that work well. Someone he knows has been in palliative care for 25 years and has never had a simple request for euthanasia.
A Doctor in Quebec is a palliative care doctor who fought for euthanasia. This doctor creates disinformation. There is only one case of euthanasia in Quebec that is recognized and in that case the patient was not well treated. The patient was delirious, he had HIV/AIDS and it didn't seem possible to help so a doctor gave him a lethal injection. I was asked to help this case. This doctor was withdrawn from practice, and retrained. The doctor was not justified, he was ill informed.
The College of Doctors in Quebec brings up cases where there is agony. They believe that appropriate care could include illegal things. The Legislative framework reassures patients. The College wants euthanasia to be called medical care which is mental gymnastics.
Terminal agony is a difficult area in palliative care. Patients go through periods of anguish, but finally they go through a period of final agony where they are often in a coma. The family does suffer through this period as people are in this state for days or weeks with no or little hydration and nutrition. They have sores, they don't smell good, but they still breath and move a little. There is a temptation to end this period.
It is difficult to understand at this point why we shouldn't open the door to euthanasia.
Doctors have great power over patients. They must have a position of giving life and not death. Doctors have so much power and freedom to do what needs to be done, if they are allowed to give death it will undermine the doctor/patient relationship of trust. If they can give death it will be abused.
It is the whole question of the slippery slope and it is difficult to explain. With euthanasia the doctor/patient relationship is made dangerous. We should use the language of powerlessness.
People will be dying at home more and more. I can tell you that when we have people who are going to hospitals where they are not known they are very much at risk.
Q1 When you talk about the Quebec values that are at the root of the problem, how do we fix that?
A1 There is not enough exposure to what we do in palliative care. We need a better and more flexible system. Information about the right to refuse over-treatment. We have great tools so very few palliative care physicians are in favour of euthanasia.
Q2 The argument that there is no need for euthanasia because of palliative care lost badly in other areas. We need to show different reasons.
A2 Sees point but we still need to make the doctor/patient relationship argument better.
Q2 That didn't do much for me before euthanasia was legalized (in a state) but when my doctor actually voted for euthanasia it did affect my trust.
Q3 Some family physicians see this as part of their long tern relationship with a patient to offer euthanasia. This is very common in Holland
A3 Family physicians who are better informed in Palliative care can advise patients against euthanasia. Patients often ask doctors for advice because they are not sure what to do. Doctors have great power to persuade.
Event Blogging the Wilberforce Weekend: Plenary Session on Developing an Advocacy Campaign Strategy
Please Note: This is a summary of the events and speeches in my own words for educational, information, and entertainment purposes only. It is not the speakers' exact words and should not be taken as such. It also may contain errors due to the nature of the medium. I am not responsible for any of them, use at your own risk and consult the official videos and/or audio record if you want to verify or quote anything.
Preston Manning
The following format is the audience (A) giving answers, suggestions and Preston Manning (PM) responding, asking questions, summarizing their remarks, etc.
Suppose we were part of a campaign to oppose euthanasia and direct public action. In what context will this issue come up in Canada? The bill that is coming up is highly unlikely to pass. Physician assisted suicide will be brought through the courts, another Sue Rodriguez challenge. It will be a constitutional challenge. There is a good chance that the court will strike down the law.
What is our ultimate objective? What is the goal of a campaign to oppose euthanasia?
Is our goal to retain the current law? Change the law in such a way that we have iron clad regulation?
(A) We should phrase it positively, protection for the vulnerable.
(A) Education. People need to understand their options, legal ramifications, what help is available
(PM) That goes together
(A) It should be a multi-faceted campaign with a positive prescriptive agenda for change. We need a set of common and shared principles from religion and human rights ideas. Choose something positive that will resonate with Canadians like a charter of rights for healthcare. What sets Canadians apart from Americans is their healthcare. Support and assistance in palliative care is something that people can believe in and adopt. It would also disarm our opponents.
(A) It really doesn't matter what the law says. People who are determined to die will do it one way or another. We need a society where no one will want to die or think of dying. It makes no sense to say that alternatives are available if they are not accessible. Information and resources need to be made available.
(A) In (a state) the palliative care argument did not work against choice. However if Canadians define themselves by their healthcare, their healthcare is at risk because people will be offered Assisted suicide instead of cures.
(PM) The more focused you are on one objective the better it is. On the other hand there have been people advocating a more multi-faceted approach.
(A) A multi-track approach can work, but we must be focused on the issue. That doesn't preclude multiple ways to address the issue. We can't just focus on legal but also need legislative. We should have cases ready. We need to identify problems and address them.
Parliamentary Track
Court Track
Education/Communication
Service
(PM) We need to be clear on tracks so we can give volunteers focus and direction
(A) we need to really focus on the service track so that we have authenticity.
(A) We should develop a case ourselves for the court. We should sue for abuse. His father could have lived but because of finances and so forth it was in the interest of the doctors to kill. Wilberforce was successful because they focused on horrors and abuses. In Washington they focused on the success in Oregon and didn't talk about the horrors in Oregon
(A) We need to address the issues about finances with regard to demographics. If the system cannot bear the cost then euthanasia will happen.
(PM) Talking about finances like that could potentially hurt us.
(A) Should we have intellectual/academic track? We should support academics who must get lonely.
(PM) We should be careful about getting TOO multi track
(A) Don't politicians appoint Supreme Court justices? Why are you so pessimistic about the Supreme Court?
(PM) Based on my knowledge of the Supreme Court. They focus on equality issue when it comes to euthanasia. There is a better than 50/50 chance of they will declare it unconstitutional.
(A) Need a renewed emphasis on open debate at universities. You alienate yourself if you take a countercultural stand there. There needs to be an emphasis on the issue itself not just ad hominems.
(PM) Used to need a police escort on UofO because of bilingual stance so understands that.
How do we seize the high moral ground. Opponents say they care more about people who are suffering.
(A) Alex S. debates a lot and thinks that he does very well, but then someone wins by bringing up some horrific personal situation. Our spokespeople are most effective when they have lived the issues.
(PM) Give voice to those affected by the issues.
(A) Can we be proactive. Can this group develop a protocol to help doctors and patients who are in critical situations?
(PM) Key word is proaction. It gives authority.
(A) In terms of lawsuit we can bring forward many things. For example where people ask for care and are denied it. Redefine or define again the relationship between doctor and patient.
(PM) Legal committee should bring up 5 cases we can pursue pro-bono (laughter)
(A) We need expert resources for physicians in difficult situations. People need advice for difficult cases.
(A) In B.C. they have a toll free number that any medical personnel can access 24/7 and get a palliative care expert to give advice on any case.
(A) To gain moral high ground, we need numbers.
(PM) That is gaining democratic legitimacy.
(A) The problems are not so much palliative care as sticky ICU cases and so forth. The court cases can work against us if it is a crazy person just wanting to prolong life with ridiculous measures.
(PM) Summary: Give voice to those who are affected by these situations and we need to engage in real action.
How do we organize the campaign? Should we form a coalition? Diverse but not too diverse? National? Alternatives?
(A) There are many different groups here with many different approaches etc. If you form a prescriptive coalition people will start to bail out. Make it loose enough that individual groups and people can give the message their own flavour.
(PM) So yes, but not too prescriptive.
(A) Alex S. Coalition works when focused. When we are at a larger meeting things can fall apart when people get too divided and less focused. There must be commitment to remain focused on what they are doing. Then people from all backgrounds can be comfortable and equal.
(PM) There is difficulty maintaining focus in a multi-track
(A) We are more like a massed choir, where different choirs come together for one event then break up. We are not just one choir. When you break into workshops for example you must be committed to your workshop but may send messages to other groups. So to faith-based groups, multi-issue groups, single-issue groups can work together but stay separate.
(A) Another tool for vulnerable people is the UN charter for people with disabilities which Canada has signed.
(A) There are very distinct provincial spheres and we need to realize that and work on those levels.
(A) There are many coalitions and groups. We need to identify who is going to be our voice in different issues. And how loyal we are going to be to those voices.
(PM) Easier to get people who are directly affected
(A) We need to stay focused, don't focus on other social issues we might disagree on. We see how enemy could divide us.
(PM) We would all agree on that.
(A) This issue needs to be connected to an event.
(PM) If you are out on a surfboard you can get a hold of a wave and ride to shore. Or you could drown.
Summary: Multi-track approach but need to realize this could draw us off focus. Parliamentary, Court, Education/Communication, Service
Spokespeople who are affected. Action.
Coalition but not too prescriptive. Maintain focus. Maybe multiple coalitions. Keep an eye out for some big event.
In a real campaign strategy you would spend a lot of time and come up with a document. In the small groups we will not be discussing strategy but discussing action, how to implement the policy.
They need more people in finance sub-committee. So-cons don't like doing funding but it is absolutely vital. (They put a $5 bill on the paper to encourage signups. Didn't work) Alex S. talks about all the things they could do if they had money.
Event Blogging the Wilberforce Weekend: Advocacy Campaign Planning Meeting
Please Note: This is a summary of the events and speeches in my own words for educational, information, and entertainment purposes only. It is not the speakers' exact words and should not be taken as such. It also may contain errors due to the nature of the medium. I am not responsible for any of them, use at your own risk and consult the official videos and/or audio record if you want to verify or quote anything.
This is a simulated campaign strategy meeting. In a real meeting they would go around and ask how the meetings went. Did someone talk too much? Did you stay focused?
Somethings will need to be adjusted to different regions
The Reports
Coalition Building -
Had quite a few young people which was great to give a different perspectives.
A coalition has to include different ethnic groups and perspectives.
Needs a positive and self-explanatory name
Rights and equality based focus
Open to everyone religious, non-religious...
Guidelines for communication, discipline, clear expectations, unity in diversity, entry protocols?
Separate English/French Coalitions. Separate religious coalition? Effective communication strategy.
3 Actions to begin with:
Make a Coalition agreement
Appoint a Steering Committee
Name
Grassroots Democracy
Three tracks, legal (not grassroots), political (grassroots), medical care.
First - Education, Most people would stare off into space if you talked to them about palliative care. End of life and pain relief are easier phrases to understand.
Second - Need for regular messaging events. Demonstrations, rallies, at local to national levels.
Third - Contact MPs on this issue. Email and pre-made postcards are not much better than nothing. 1-2 paragraph personal letter with return address is great. MPs really do log and pay attention to your input.
Fourth - Involving Youth, essay and video contests. Specific outreach to campus.
Fifth - Organize speaking tours
Sixth - Make use of information technology
Ethics
Pleased to tell you that in 50min we were able to summarize the entire Western Philosophical canon (laughter).
Should be more popular than academic.
Words like justice and equality cause confusion.
Ethics is knowledge. You need to have as much info as possible to make ethical decisions. Spoke about how some things are unknowable or not yet known.
We also spoke about how the opposition subverted the use of the word choice.
As a community we should be erring on the side of life. We are caring for the living, not helping people die.
There are many international documents that we can use in our favour. They have things about the value of humanity written in secular language.
(Slogan) A positive ethic creating a caring community.
Preston Manning: Ethics should also take concern for the internal ethics of coalition as well.
Research
Would need to have two main focuses. Supplying the needs of the campaign immediately. Profile MPs, finding talking points, databases of research and organizations.
Second in the academic community to get credentialed research that fills in gaps, clinical research into how this affects vulnerable people. Research into affect on families.
In retrospect research would find it better to liaison with other groups to find out what they need.
P Manning: In the heat of a campaign find someone who already knows it rather than researching it yourself for 2 days if possible.
The worst thing that can happen is when key players get worn out so we have the ...
Spiritual Group
Had Catholics and Protestants and still got on.
The role of community is important. Support for family of campaigners as well. Campaigners can't always be there for their families and children.
Listening service, people need to talk.
Accountability
Prayer
Rest and relaxation. The need for fun.
Positive letters for encouragement.
Providing books
PM Manning: Having people who ask about and encourage you can be so good.
Organization
Our vision is to have a steering committee from all different organizations. No need for a new organization just representatives from different existing ones.
8-10 people should meet a few times a year. One part-time staff person. Different organizations contribute money and we do fund raisers.
Steering committee would have controls on finances etc. Reports to other organizations.
Formed a draft budget for one year.
Need to develop the following:
Objective for steering committee.
Short term incremental goals to keep focused.
Who is on the steering committee.
Operational protocols for problem solving.
Third-party evaluations
Volunteers, recruit specific skill sets from within different organizations. Attract specific volunteers for specific projects.
Steering committee should be delegates from, not leaders of, source organizations so they are accountable to parent organization leadership.
P Manning: Do you allow for a campaign manager. There can be fights between underlying organizations and the campaign manager when the underlying organization can't hand off the issue to the campaign manager for a campaign.
Organize - this steering committee could pick a leader. Maybe a rotating position.
In other words, don't create something new, leverage existing skills.
Funding
Wasn't too happy with the fact that Organization report involves half a million dollars. Research - easy to raise money. Spokesperson, staff, communication, legal case funding (hard to do),
How to raise money. Foundations hard to get money from. Need a groundswell of supporters. Coalition fees - membership fees. events as money raiser. Multi-face segments, fundraising from all faith communities. Web-based funding. Focus groups, Letter campaigns. Track communications. Communication media team. Phone campaigns.
Reasons for giving - personal experience with the issue, education, people who want to make a difference, networking together, need to get public exposure because people want to give to successful organizations.
P Manning: There are some problems. easier to get money for negative appeals than positive appeals. Strategic problem. More fights in coalitions over money than anything. raising and spending money are delicate.
Communications and Media
They focused on external communication and on a web campaign as the first step. Considered it as a branding exercise.
Some observations:
They (pro-euthanasia) are ahead on language, public perception
We are ahead on truth
They are ahead on faces, public figures
We are ahead on witness, stories
They are ahead on being perceived as caring
We are ahead on sanctity
They are ahead on the future, that it is "inevitable"
We are ahead on our position being the status quo
From 0-10 how well we were doing. We are 4 out of 10. we are on defence and we are behind. If you are behind you shouldn't be on defence but on offence.
Developed some slogans:
If my doctor supports euthanasia she's not for me
Kill the pain not the patient
Stop the death machine
What's the rush?
He fought for our lives should we not fight for him? The Canadian treasure box series. People as treasure not trash.
Showed some example slides.
Legal
First - Legislative. Charter. Need to uphold current law. Redefining some concepts like aid and abet, counselling. Enforcement issues. Positive proactive measures like healthcare bill of rights.
Second - Litigation, look at things like withdrawn and refusal of treatment, discrimination, interference in upcoming legal battles. Access to services.
Third - Set of legal principles. Abuse of palliative sedation. Medical futility, food and fluids. Constitutional implications in federal/provincial jurisdiction issues. Two key issues for Canadians is our healthcare and Charter
Fourth - Administrative issues and administrative bodies. Our own administration, set up advisor board, legal fund for good cases. Look at accountability for hospitals.
P Manning - If you only had $500,000 what would you focus on?
Legal - Find right test case for palliative sedation. Address medical futility and access to services. Develop principles. Accountability
Medical/Palliative
Want to stop calling it the palliative track but call it medical. Broaden to include all who need support, disabled, older people, etc.
We have stories going for us. Positive about how care has made difference. Negative about not receiving care and potential for abuse. These people don't have a choice when they are taken advantage of. Spread through new media.
Need a new name
Networking opportunities for doctors etc who get lonely. Website, web based mailing list that is uniquely Canadian. Form subgroup of coalition for medical professionals
Contact medical organizations, etc to make sure they are strong on these issues.
Get medical people involved.
Get on curriculum committees.
Get team for specific issues. Little SWAT teams of five people, lawyer, doctor, etc. give 3 minute presentation each to MPs.
Lack of education makes people afraid. Or they have small fear of loosing control, we need to replace with the big fear of euthanasia making you loose control.
Remembering heritage we have. A cultural green, our heritage is like an old growth forest. You can cut it down in a few minutes but it takes hundreds of years to grow.
P Manning: You will notice that communication runs through all groups. Love the old growth forest analogy.
In this country there are regional differences. You can make a national strategy but it needs to be customized for different regions.
Quebec Group
Need to create a French-speaking coalition.
Covered much of the same ground as the other committees. People have many fears, choice is illusion, we need a diverse membership.
The object is to protect vulnerable people, not just people with terminal illnesses.
Coalition is not the right word. A better word might be "Regroupement" for Prevention of Suicide and Euthanasia. This is tentative. It should be suicide not assisted suicide. Quebec is very much into anti-suicide campaigns, how can you oppose suicide and support assisted suicide?
Necessary actions: Find a leader, appoint a team, give correct education and challenge confusion and misinformation, show alternatives, reclaim important words, identify political allies.
P Manning: In Quebec there is most likelihood of supporting euthanasia but more concern for vulnerable people.
Quebec - They are not more likely, there is just lack of information and much disinformation.
Wes McLeod
Next steps we can take:
Each person leverages synergies they have discovered or renewed here.
Manning Centre commits to communicate a summary of this meeting. This will be emailed to you. We will also give to each person a list of people who attended the seminar with contact info.
Third thing DVDs will be available from Euthanasia Prevention Coalition later on.
Third thing DVDs will be available from Euthanasia Prevention Coalition later on.
Q & A
Question 1 Will a list of people on each committee be available?
Answer 1 Yes
Q2 Faytene's posters available?
A2 Have to talk, probably yes.
Q3 Powerpoints available on email?
A3 Yes
Q3 Thanks for work of people.
P Manning: Thanks to Wes and Shannon
If you found this seminar helpful, use these guidelines where you are in your own organizations.
If you found this type of seminar helpful and would like to do something like this Wes would probably be open.
If there is a desired will to work towards a national campaign Alex and Wes would like to hear from you and what area you are interested in helping with.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Why We Cannot Allow Creation in Schools
Because children might grow up to be anti-science and might tell us the "angel of death killed my bacteria culture".
Word has it that the ACLU is going to be getting involved for violation of the separation of time-traveling bird and science. Or not. Have it your way. Who knows what I really wrote anyway since some time-traveling mongoose super-geek may have hacked the system and altered my words.
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing — they believe in anything." G.K. Chesterton
The Infidel Blogger Awards
The Infidel Blogger Awards: Welcome Thought Criminals, Kuffars & Apostates to The Infidel Blogger Awards 2nd Edition!
For the record, my nominations are:
Best Overall International - Binks of Free Canuckistan. He doesn't do as much original writing as some but his blog is the most useful.
Best Overall Canadian - Ezra Levant for his long posts.
Favourite Non-Politically Correct MSM Pundit - Mark Steyn. In actual point of fact I take issue with some of Styen's stuff but I read him the most and he can be entertaining.
Most Despised Politically Correct MSM Pundit - No nominations from me so far.
Favourite Apostate Blogger or MSM Pundit - Salim Mansur, even though he's not really an apostate (I don't think).
Blogger or Pundit Most Likely to be Charged with Hate Crime - Kathy Shaidle, this was obvious to almost everyone. Not my favourite blogger but the right pick for this category.
Blogger or Pundit Most Likely to Be Assasinated by Islamists - Tarek Fatah, for Canadians anyway. In point of actual fact it is probably someone in Iran or something.
Biggest Pro-Censorship ****** in the Known Universe - Jennifer Lynch. Parochial I know what with some of the censorship going on in the world but... this is a Canadian focused contest.
If you have not yet nominated someone, why not?
Warren Kinsella - 10 Political Predictions for 2009
This should be fun. I know it isn't quite December yet but....
Original posted Dec 31 2008 here. My comments are the ones in bold below.
"Lots of media folks – who have never stuffed a political envelope, or walked a campaign canvass in their lives – are writing thumbsuckers about their political predictions for the year ahead. To balance out the universe, I thought I would make some media predictions for the year ahead. But I couldn’t think of ten things to predict about the media – other than the demise of the Post – so I’ll stick to ten things to predict about politics."
And what do I know, anyway."
What indeed.
1. There’ll be an election. A minority government, and a country in a near-Depression, are mutually-exclusive concepts. As things get worse, the pressure on the Opposition parties to topple the Conservative administration will be enormous. Personally, I’m all for toppling ‘em right now.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Are you still for calling an election right now Kinsella?
2. The Liberal Party of Canada will win the election, because we’ve got the most impressive leader: he’s super-smart, he’s accomplished, he’s decent, he has an extraordinary ability to bring people together. We’ve also got the best team: we’ve got a Rae, a LeBlanc, a Trudeau, a Dryden, a Garneau, a Hall-Finlay, a Dhalla…I could go on. (I will, too.)
Which really explains Ignatieff's polls.
3. The Liberals will win the election for another reason: in the extraordinary circumstances in which we find ourselves, it is traditional “liberal” policy which makes the most sense – smart government involvement in the economy, and everything that means. Hoary old “conservative” chestnuts – tax cuts, privatization, indifference to the weak and the poor – just don’t appeal to people in times like these.
What liberal policy? I thought we were having some issues about the Liberals not releasing their platform.
4. The Reform Conservative Party of Parts of Western Canada will lose the election, because they’ve got an angry leader that people – women and young people in particular – just can’t warm up to. They’ll lose because they’ve got a pretty unremarkable team, too. Apart from Jim Prentice and a couple others, I’m guessing 99 per cent of Canadians couldn’t name five ministers in the federal cabinet. When the face of your entire political organization is one man – and a man whom voters are increasingly unenthusiastic about – you’ve got trouble, baby.
To take a Globe and Mail headline, Women and Ignatieff: What Went Wrong?
5. The economy, as I’ve suggested before, will be the answer to every political question. Foreign policy matters a bit, as we are seeing right now; so do important questions like Afghanistan and so on. Of course; that’s obvious. But, to many voters, none of that matters as much as their ability to feed their families, or pay the mortgage, or figure out how to keep the hydro on. That’s not right or wrong – it’s just the way it is. And no incumbent government has ever been elected, to my knowledge, after presiding over a deep recession and/or near-Depression. That’s why I believe the Harper Conservatives are toast. Every factory closing, every job loss, every bad economic headline is killing them. In these circumstances, their political opponents need only maintain a pulse.
Under these circumstances either the Harper conservatives are making political popularity history... or their opponents have lost pulse and are DOA.
6. The Conservatives iron communications discipline will continue to crack. Now that caucus and cabinet and staff see how many mistakes Mr. Harper has made in a very short period of time – cozying up to ADQ loser Mario Dumont and angering majority Premier Jean Charest in the process; blowing a Parliamentary majority with a ton of rookie mistakes during the election campaign; causing a constitutional crisis that united the Left and left the Conservative leader looking like a tin-eared rageaholic – they will continue to lose confidence in him and his PMO. They will start reverting to type, and showing up in print.
That would be the constitutional crisis that was to quote someone "the Christmas gift that keeps on giving" and is one of Harper's greatest assets. No one warned the Left that Canada wouldn't find their union amusing.
7. The Liberals, meanwhile, will continue to embrace communications discipline – because, as Michael Ignatieff clearly has shown them, communications discipline works. The Grits will utterly dispense of the Chrétien-Martin era internecine warfare, because nobody remembers anymore what they were fighting about in the first place. (I sure can’t.)
Just torn by party fighting is all.
8. I can’t predict what the Conservatives will do in their budget; they’d gotten crazier than shithouse rats, around the end of 2008, and it’s hard to predict the behavior of crazy people, let alone rats. But if they come up with a stinker, and more silly games, they’ll be defeated in the House of Commons and at the ballot box. If they figure out a way to evade the executioner, they’ll be governing during the worst of the worst economic downturn in decades. Either way, they’re screwed. Short-term, long-term, they’re hooped.
This explains why Canada has been so vehemently opposed to another election.
9. We’re overdue for some sort of environmental calamity. That, when combined with the Reform Conservatives’ complete disinterest in things like climate change, will make people angrier. John Baird will wish he had listened to Al Gore. So will everyone.
The only angry people I heard about are a laughing stock for potential lies about parliament security brutality. And I also missed the environmental calamity. Any out of the ordinary environmental calamity anyway.
10. Warren will spend quite a bit of time in Ottawa, starting, well, in just a few days. My little web site will therefore get a lot more partisan, disappointing Conservatives and delighting me in the process. Spring will come, flowers will bloom, the natural political balance will be restored. God bless us all.
Oh Mr. Kinsella you misunderstand us. The Conservatives are never more delighted than when you are spewing partisan insults. It gives us lots to blog on.
Add your own refutations in the comments please.
David Frum needs a Fact Check
The National Post headline read "US Health Care Plan May Ban Abortion". Much as pro-lifers would love that to be accurate, it is a distortion of the facts.
The US is not about to ban abortion. As Frum's article does go on to say the issue is about federal funding of abortion, whether insurance companies that receive federal subsidies can cover abortion. The Stupak amendment would say no, and as Frum accurately points out, this would eventually leave most women without coverage for abortions.
Somehow this would ban abortions, despite the fact that currently only about 13 percent of abortions are directly billed to private insurance companies.
David Frum also says "until now, relatively few women of childbearing age have had the benefit of federal funding. Poor women on Medicaid, under-18 girls on S-Chip, military women, and women who use the Indian Health Service were affected. But most women of childbearing age are enrolled in private coverage, and private plans almost always cover medically necessary abortions."
While this is presumably true, the article implies that medically necessary abortions will no longer be covered. What it neglects to mention is that under the Stupak amendment abortions will still be covered if the mother's life is in danger or in cases of rape or incest. It will not cover elective abortions or some abortions that are considered "medically necessary", such as when the baby has Down Syndrome.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Ouch...
I hate agreeing with the HRCs but...
I have to agree that the transexual who took the health club to court didn't abuse the system.
Where I can now disagree with the HRC is why I came to that conclusion.
The system was not abused because the system is so nuts that it is almost impossible to abuse, or at least almost impossible to abuse in a way that it hasn't been abused before.
Why make the transexual pay for the abuse when the whole system was telling him/her that she/he had every right to do what she/he did?
Here's a novel idea, make the HRC pay for allowing such a thing to happen. After all, they ought to know better. Poor confused individuals... not so much.
CREED by Steve Turner
"We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin.
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don't hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.
We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy's OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe everything's getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there's something in horoscopes,
UFO's and bent spoons;
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher although we think
His good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same--
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness,
They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God and salvation.
We believe that after death comes Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then it's
compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps
Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.
We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What's selected is average.
What's average is normal.
What's normal is good.
*****
We believe that man is essentially good.
It is only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.
We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth
that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
and the flowering of individual thought.
* * * * *
If Chance be the Father of all flesh
disaster is His rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of Man
worshipping his Maker."
PSA For Anyone in Southern Ontario...
Friends of mine aka as Soli Deo Gloria Ballet will be preforming "Behold the Child" at various locations in Southern Ontario between Nov. 20 and Dec. 20.
Remembrance Day Serial Story
A serial story about WW1 loosely based on true events. The series was published this week in the Pembroke Daily Observer (with different pictures and layout) and was written by Owen Hebbert (My seventeen year old brother in case anyone is wondering.)
"the best piece of fiction writing that this old editor had ever seen" Peter Lapinskie, Managing Editor for The Daily Observer
**********************
Rain fell across the battlefield in a heavy, imposing manner. It came in thick, blinding waves like the wash of a sea. There was no lightning and subsequently no thunder, but the sky was so replete with clouds that were one uninformed one might have thought it night rather than day.
In the trench it was hell. Water ran in cascades down the mud walls and gushed in black, frothing rivers over the trench floor. The men were halfway up to their knees in it. There was almost nowhere that they could go to get away from the rain. Those sitting on benches that lined the walls of the trench had to be resigned to getting not only their shins but also their laps wet as rain continued to pour in and water fell down from directly over them in long, streaming drips. Worse than this was the rats. Hundreds of rodents, fat from months of feeding on human refuse and bodies, were drowning – and not quietly.
“Bloody cold,” James Lawrence said. The young English corporal shuddered and flapped his arms across his chest, sending a spray of muddy water into the face of the private beside him. “Sorry about that, Cramer.” Lawrence apologized, rolling his shoulders miserably.
“Forget it,” Cramer said, wiping his bare hand across his face, a wholly vain effort in hygiene as his hand was muddy and dripping rainwater. Jonathan Cramer was young. Not young like Lawrence was young but much younger still. The boy’s face was acne-ridden and the baby fat that still clung to his cheekbones contrasted strongly with the firm set of his jaw and the deep bags under his eyes. The youth was withdrawn and had always avoided conversation with his fellow-soldiers. Deep within his sunken eyes, and under his youthful face was a secret that his nervous, fretful disposition caused to prey on his mind.
“How old are you Cramer?” Lawrence asked, sucking the rainwater off his lips and spitting it back out into the water swilling around his legs.
“Sixteen,” Cramer said in a low voice. Like hell he was sixteen.
“Really?” Lawrence smiled at the kid. Cramer wasn’t looking at him, but was busily occupied with chewing the corner of his mouth off instead. The boy was obviously younger than that. Fifteen or an older fourteen. The carbine clutched in the youngster’s hands seemed humorously unthreatening. What does a boy like that do when he breaches the trench? They call it cannon fodder.
“Why’s the water doing that?” Cramer asked, sullenly changing the subject.
“Doing what?” Lawrence followed the boy’s gaze and found himself looking at the black flood his feet were immersed in. He really wasn’t all that interested in talking about water in any form right then. He took his peaked cap off and tapped it on his forehead to knock the rain off before pulling it back over his lank black hair.
“It’s sort of swirling there,” Cramer said, pointing.
Something in his voice, an oddly uncharacteristic strain of insistence, made Lawrence look again. The trench was as dark as late dusk and the water was darker than hell, but in the light from the sputtering kerosene lantern carried by a passing sergeant, the surface of the water was somewhat illuminated.
And Lawrence saw it. A single, thin whirlpool with a diameter of about two inches was spinning furiously.
“I’ll be a son-of-a-gun,” Lawrence breathed, leaning closer.
“Where’s it going?” Cramer asked, also leaning forward, impressed that the small nothing that he had chosen to change the subject was so genuinely interesting.
“I don’t know but it’s going steady. Somewhere there’s a big space that’s taking a lot of filling,” Lawrence said thoughtfully.
“But what? There’s no space under this is there? I mean, I wasn’t here for the digging but I don’t think we have anything here. Unless there’s some kind of a storage cell under the boards of the trench floor. Do think that there are supplies getting wet?”
“Storage cells be hanged!” Lawrence snapped. He straightened and rose. “Sergeant Durst!”
The sergeant turned and looked over towards the speaker, raising his lantern to see better which of the soggy, mud-coated men was speaking. He saw Lawrence standing and nodded curtly, not interested in being detained when he could go stand in Major Heath’s small dugout while delivering his report. “You have something of importance to report, Corporal Lawrence?”
“It’s just a small matter, Sir.” Lawrence pointed down at the mysterious indication of a drain.
“What is it man?” Durst demanded, squinting past his lantern at the patch of dark, swirling liquid being indicated.
Lawrence leaned closer down, stabbed his gloved finger at the whirlpool. He didn’t speak, forcing Durst to come closer to inspect.
“Well?” Durst seemed unimpressed. “It’s water. You have some in your ear. If it weren’t there you might have heard that I asked you if you had anything of importance to report.”
“The water’s draining, Sir,” Lawrence said.
“Then it has my blessing. Is that all, Corporal?”
“Sir,” Lawrence said carefully, “the water shouldn’t have anywhere to be draining to.”
“Then it isn’t draining, man! Do you need me to take this apart for you? Idiot!”
“Sir…”
“Shut up!” Richard Durst couldn’t believe that he was having this argument when the major was awaiting the routine report. “Shut up!”
“Yes, Sir,” Lawrence saluted and sat back down on the bench. The warmth from when he had been sitting there before was already washed away by the torrent that crashed loudly down on them from the merciless skies.
Richard Durst turned and started wading away through the trench. The man had been making fun of him. Water draining. The subordinates could be such stupid blighters. Durst was devoted to serving his king, his country and his major. Unadulterated passion for noble causes drove the man and got him recognized and promoted. Men like Lawrence were spiteful over the apparent ease with which such sincerity bought the go-getters favour. Mind, Corporal Lawrence wasn’t a common perpetrator of disrespect. What had the man been thinking? Water draining, indeed. In the trench! What was supposed to be obvious there?
Then it clicked.
“Bloody hell!” The sergeant turned and stared, his expression one of dawning horror, at Lawrence. The corporal nodded, his face softening as he saw that Durst was catching on.
“You!” Durst shot his hand out and pointed to Cramer even as what felt like a full inch of rain fell from the sky and slammed over them, drowning his words out in a whirling scream of wind and water.
“Me?” Cramer pointed to himself, guessing at the intent of Durst’s gesture.
“Tell Major Heath that something of considerable importance has turned up! Go! Run, boy!”
Water crashing up on either side in wings of black, frigid water, the private plowed off through the flooded trench. Durst and Lawrence studied the whirlpool in the light of the lantern. The unspoken fear that they both felt was understood and not stated. There was only one reason that there would be a large space under their trench.
The Germans had tunneled across no man’s land.
****************************
It was about then that the lightning storm started.
“When did you find this, Corporal?” Sergeant Richard Durst asked tersely.
“Just as you were going by, Sir. Private Cramer saw it.” Corporal James Lawrence shivered as rainwater ran down the small of his back.
“Observant. Run and get me two shovels.”
“Yes Sir!” Lawrence turned and ran.
“Bloody observant,” Durst muttered, straightening. He carefully took the glove off his right hand, put it in his pocket and rolled up his right sleeve. Overhead the thunder rumbled and then cracked like a whip. Bending over, Durst submerged his hand in the muddy water and felt about the slimy trench floor. At first, the senses of his hand were so numbed by the cold, the wet and the slimy soil that it didn’t register anything but discomfort. Then he felt it. The harshest point of the current directly over the drain. Water gushed through his fingers and disappeared between a pair of smooth, ice-cold rocks.
“Shovels, Sir!” Corporal Lawrence was back, holding two short trenching shovels.
“Sergeant!” The voice was cold with an edge like serrated knife-blade.
It was Major David Heath. Private Jonathon Cramer, who had been dispatched to call for the major was close behind.
“Sir!” Durst turned, straightened and saluted. He was older than Heath, which wasn’t saying much. As so many officers had been killed during the war, young men like Heath were being quickly promoted to dangerous positions of authority.
“You saw fit to have me called for?”
“Sir, yes, Sir.”
“Well speak man! What is it?”
Durst was not a man to quibble. He was frank and came straight to the point. “I think that the Germans have tunneled under our trench.”
Heath was silent for the space of about five seconds. He glanced at the three men standing in a semi-circle in front of him. They were all part of his regiment and he knew them all. He had met Sergeant Durst and Corporal Lawrence on previous occasions and Private Cramer had introduced himself just minutes earlier. The words that had just escaped Durst’s lips were not, however, heard by this limited assembly alone. Whispers and despairing moans erupted from the dozens of men all about them and in an instant word was passed throughout the trench.
“Why?” Heath asked.
“Water is draining at this point,” Durst indicated the whirlpool and lowered his lantern so that the major could see more clearly, “and it isn’t stopping.
“The bloody Germans have tunneled under us!” A frantic voice gasped.
“That’s it!” A mid-aged private rose and began clambering at the trench wall that led away from no-man’s land.
Heath whipped out his revolver and aimed it at the deserter’s head. “Don’t make a move, man, or I shoot your stupid brains out! We don’t know that there’s a tunnel! Dying while running from something that isn’t there would be one hell of a daft way to go!”
For a moment the only noise was the thunder, the rain and the plaintive shrieks of drowning rats. The Webley Mark VI was no gun to fool with. It’s .455 bullet could knock off almost any part of the body and utterly shatter the thickest of bones. Should Heath missed the man’s head and hit a non-vital area, the death would only be slower as a shattered arm or leg in the trenches meant guaranteed gangrene.
Slowly, carefully, the would-be deserter slid back down into the trench.
Heath’s attention quickly moved back to the matter of the drain. “Lawrence and Cramer? I want you to ascertain the truth. Dig this drain out. It’s probably nothing, but we mustn’t be caught with our trousers down.” Heath stepped back and allowed the two men to start digging. As he holstered his revolver, he turned to Richard Durst. “Sergeant, you may deliver your routine report to me now.”
Lawrence had been soaked and muddy before he started digging but now he was feeling like a perfect porpoise. Digging mud under a foot of water while heavy rain poured down from above was disgusting, back-breaking work, especially using the short little trenching shovels. However, it was not wholly unsatisfactory. As more and more watery filth was shoveled aside, the intensity of the drain picked up.
“There’s definitely something there,” Heath said thoughtfully, interrupting Durst’s report. “Your shovel, Mr. Cramer?” Heath took the shovel and prodded at a rock exposed by the rushing water. There was a sucking noise and the small boulder disappeared, leaving a gaping hole in what should have been a solid trench floor. The water soon filled the gap, creating a powerful current around the men’s ankles.
“A tunnel,” a nearby soldier breathed.
“I’m just about through,” the private that had tried fleeing said coldly. “I’d rather take a bullet in the head from a Brit than from a Hun. Hell knows when they’ll start pouring up into here with their grenades and knives and guns. We’ll all be crucified. I…”
David Heath turned around so fast that his greatcoat swirled like a cape. “You will die, man, if you say another word.” The young officer’s gun was back out and was aimed, as steady as a pin in a vice, at the private’s face. There was a moment of silence and then the gun was lowered and holstered. Sweat stung Heath’s face.
There were about forty men standing where Major Heath could see them. Faces were somber and unhappy; hands gripped Lee-Enfields as though preparing to shoot down whatever might erupt from the gaping hole in the ground through which water still fell.
“I need a volunteer to lower himself through this hole,” Heath said.
The ranks of gathered men visibly shuddered and many drew back to avoid being mistaken for volunteers.
“Sir?” A quiet, immature voice called.
Lawrence stabbed his shovel into the ground and turned away. He wrapped his arms around his chest and shivered, unable to stand what he knew was coming.
“Yes Mr. Cramer?” Heath said, turning to the boy.
“I’ll do it, Sir.”
“You’re small enough,” Heath said approvingly.
“Permission requested to accompany Private Cramer,” Lawrence asked, his voice harsh.
“Permission granted,” Heath said approvingly.
The two men dropped into the tunnel and a lantern was lowered to them.
For about five minutes there was total silence save the rumble of thunder.
“Major! There’s something down here you should see!”
Heath raised his eyebrows and climbed down into the tunnel as well. For a moment he couldn’t see anything save the harsh glare of the lantern that Cramer was holding. Then he saw it. Piled high at the end of the tunnel was a mound about three feet high of wired dynamite.
Heath reached over and extinguished the lantern that Cramer was holding. “Bleeding hell,” he whispered.
*************************
Back in the trench the suspense was incredible. Neither Lawrence or Cramer dared tell what they had seen in the darkness of the tunnel below their feet and Major David Heath seemed disinclined to divulge the information himself. The major sat on a bench, smoking a cigarette with a feverish intensity. It was still raining and the lightning storm was directly over the battlefield, deafening and blinding the men as it struck down on the metal-littered no-man’s land.
After about ten minutes of dangerous quiet, Heath rose and straightened. He looked at the thirty or so men that were sitting on benches where he could see them (the zigzagged nature of the trench only allowed him to see so far). “Men,” Heath said, “pay attention!” Lightning flashed and water slammed into the young officer as he began talking. “Circumstances have arisen that call for a dangerous mission to be executed. Even as we speak, the enemy has a sizeable stash of wired dynamite stowed under our trench. That is what their tunnel was for. I have decided that we must physically carry it back under no man’s land. My reasons for arriving at this conclusion are for the good of this war. Now there will need to be four men so that the dynamite will be transported with as much safety as can be afforded.”
“Right!” The middle-aged private who had attempted to desert earlier stood and waved a scornful hand in the major’s direction. “Which four of us want to go into that bloody hell-hole and carry dynamite around in the dark? And you know another thing? The Germans have those bombs wired and there’s no way to know when they’ll decide to shove a plunger down and scatter your insides from here to freakin’ Brandenburg!”
“What you say is true,” Heath said evenly, “and whoever volunteers should know that.”
The private sat back down as did anybody else that had been standing. Volunteers appeared to be scarce.
“However,” Heath continued, “I think that whoever volunteers should also know that I’ll be down there with them. I only need three volunteers. I will be leading them.” The young officer stood straight as a ramrod, his youthful, unshaven face dripping rainwater and his gloved hands clasped behind his back.
This was different. Here was a leader who, in the most miserable, dark, freakishly-horrible conditions was still willing to stand by principles of loyalty and self-sacrifice.
“What…” The private pointed an uncertain forefinger at Heath. “You’re going to go down there and carry the dynamite?”
“We mustn’t waste time with talk,” Heath said stiffly. “Have I any volunteers?”
“I!” Sergeant Richard Durst stepped forward.
“I!” Private Jonathon Cramer offered his services.
“Then I, too!” Corporal James Lawrence came to stand beside the boy.
“That’s three volunteers. We’ll need four trench-clubs. Would somebody…”
The rebellious private was already on his feet and running for the nearest weapons dugout.
Armed with their clubs which swung from their wrists by leather thongs and with the assistance of two electric lights, the four men dropped into the tunnel, leaving the cold, wet, loud, dying world above them and entering a hell beneath hell. They loaded all the dynamite stacked there into delicate armloads of death.
“All right!” Heath said, “now we must advance down the tunnel at the same pace, or else the cord will pull and the dynamite might go off. Sergeant Durst and Corporal Lawrence, you two are in charge of the lights. Hold them in your mouths and whatever you do, don’t drop them on your load of firecrackers or there’ll be a big crater in the middle of no-man’s land. Now ever so carefully, forward!”
The journey through the tunnel was one that is hard to describe. After the men had walked for about ten yards the floor under their feet became flooded and they were gingerly creeping over slippery boulders hidden under water that was sometimes two feet deep. The electric lights were little good, especially after Durst dropped his in the water. For twenty yards the floor remained flooded and then it rose sharply. The men emerged from the water to step into a bank of ankle-deep mud.
“This is suicide,” Cramer murmured under his breath. The boy’s every step was an act of great labour. His boots stuck in the mud and had to be dragged out with great effort. He was afraid of fooling about lest he drop his dynamite, and if he slowed up too much, the wires on the dynamite might jerk. After about five yards of negotiating the mud, he lost one of his boots and, finding that this made it easier, he quickly allowed the other to slip off as well. He would pick them back up on the return trip – provided that there was one.
“Sir…” Durst, who had been especially silent since he had lost his light, spoke for the first time. He struggled with his boot for a moment and then continued. “…Do you intend to leave this mess under the Germans’ trench?”
“Can you think of a better place to leave it?” Heath asked with a small smile that was lost in the dark.
“No, Sir,” Durst said quickly. He believed in his officer no matter what the young hothead might be doing. It was obvious that besides being gallant and selfless, this Heath fellow had a strong sense of practical irony.
They continued on in silence. For about fifty yards, the tunnel floor was actually dry. It was rough and covered in clods and stones, but dry nonetheless. It was on this ground that Cramer quickly regretted abandoning his boots. The boy’s feet were soon bruised and bleeding. The torture was increased significantly when the floor banked sharply and the four men were walking through water once more. The muddy swill stung at Cramer’s cut feet almost as bad as his own sweat had, but it was the sharp, gravel-like deposits in the water that made his every step agony.
Then they had to walk through more mud for about ten yards.
Suddenly Major Heath, who had conducted the entire journey without a single complaint, let out a quiet laugh. “Don’t speak too loudly, men, but I think that our little jaunt is at an end.”
Sure enough, in the dimming light cast by the electric torch, the end of the tunnel could be seen. The Germans had apparently boarded over the hole that they had used to dig the tunnel, as no light came down from above save a few rays that wormed between the planks of the cover. German voices and the sounds of thunder, rain, rats and the like could be heard. Water poured down through the slats of the boards and all four men quickly realized how relieving it had been not to have rain streaming down on them from above.
“Gently now!” Heath whispered. Slowly, tenderly, he placed his load of explosives down, careful not to put it under the drip. The other three followed suit. Heath made sure that the dynamite was still wired properly and, having given the mound a loving pat, drew back.
He smiled thoughtfully and said: “Mission accomplished.”
******************************
They all stepped back from the stack of wired dynamite, staring at it in horrified fascination. The Germans had tunneled across no man’s land and deposited this mother lode of explosives under the British trench, but it had been discovered. Major David Heath, Sergeant Richard Durst, Corporal James Lawrence and Private Jonathon Cramer had just finished carrying the deadly sticks back through the tunnel and placing them under the Germans’ trench.
“Shall we, gentlemen?” Major Heath waved an inviting hand towards the tunnel that led back to safety.
No second bidding was required. There was no telling when a German engineer might decide to depress the plunger of his remote detonator. The four men started running.
Private Cramer had abandoned his boots on their first trip through the tunnel and his bare feet, cut and stinging slowed him as he tried to keep up with the older soldiers. He was now carrying the dying electric lamp and its beam wavered dramatically as he stumbled and pitched through the tunnel.
Major Heath’s face was expressionless. His feet pounded steadily into the dirt, the mud, the water; his teeth sank into his cheeks as he tried to calm the flow of emotion that he felt. He felt fear, satisfaction, excitement, stress, but most of all, he felt his responsibility. The lives of these men and the leadership of his regiment back in the trench were his responsibilities.
They were about half-way across no man’s land when the dynamite went off. To the four men in the tunnel it sounded as though a large building had been picked up and dropped on another large building. Worst of all, it felt as though they were in the latter large building when it happened. For a brief instant a flash of painful light lit up the mud the men were standing in and then disappeared as the tunnel started caving in.
“Hang,” Cramer said softly.
“Run!” Heath’s order was scarcely audible as all the men’s ears had popped, but then it wasn’t entirely necessary anyway.
They ran. The electric light was gone – dropped, dead, forgotten. Slapping at the muddy tunnel walls with their hands, they felt their way through the darkness. Clods of earth and stones rained down on them from the tunnel ceiling.
“Who’s there?” Heath shouted as he ran. “Can anyone hear me?”
The rumbling of the tunnel collapsing was loud but above it came the affirmative shouts of Heath’s men.
“I’m right behind you, Sir!” That was loyal Durst.
“Here, Sir!” That was Lawrence.
“I’m coming!” This last voice, shouted out in a desperate, agonized tone of determination was that of Cramer.
“Keep yelling!” Heath shouted. “We mustn’t lose one-another!”
And so the men ran, shouting to each other and trying not to fall as they crossed the mud, the water and the short stretch of hard, dry, gravely ground that separated the long stretches of water. It was when they were about three-quarters of the way through the tunnel that the ceiling started raining down on them in earnest. Entire slabs the length of dining tables fell down amid showers of boulders and mud. Dirt filled the men’s eyes, ears, mouths, clothing and boots.
“Don’t stop yelling!” Heath roared above the colossal crashing of raining earth. “Yell your names!”
“Lawrence!” Corporal Lawrence cried.
“Durst!”
“Heath!” That was the major. Though they could barely hear him, his men thought his voice to have lost none of its authority and assurance.
“Cramer!” The boy private shouted.
“Lawrence!”
“Durst!”
“Heath!”
“I can see light!” Cramer shouted.
It was true. The end of the tunnel, heralded by rays of sunlight that streamed into the tunnel from the British trench above, was less than fifteen yards ahead of them. The sight gave the men courage and new energy. Shouting and laughing, ducking their heads to avoid the falling ceiling over them they raced forward.
Suddenly Heath heard a shriek and with safety no more than ten feet away, he froze. Every nerve in his body was stiff as a rod of iron. His ears were tingling as he tried to listen for the sound to repeat itself. He turned around, looking down the way he had come. It was hell in there. Behind him he could hear Durst and Lawrence being pulled up into the trench. Into safety.
Then he heard it again. His lips moved, disbelievingly mouthing a single name. Then he screamed it, tearing the breath from his aching lungs like a knife from a wound. “Cramer!”
He ran back into the darkness. Into the hell under hell. He couldn’t see a bloody thing. He ran to where he thought he had last heard Cramer’s voice. There was nothing there.
“Cramer!” He shouted. Suddenly his foot slipped, sending him into a deep puddle. He felt a stone scraping the skin off his knee as he landed. A clod of earth fell over his shoulder and knocked him down on his face. Pebbles and earth sprinkled across his back. He was going to be buried alive if he didn’t move. Fear gripped his heart and he struggled into a sitting position. From there he rose and threw himself against the wall where he was out of the way of most of the falling earth. “Speak, Cramer!” His nose was broken from hitting his face on the ground and he could feel that his gum had been cut.
“Help!” It was a small, pitiful cry, but even in the darkness Heath could locate its source. The boy was at his feet.
Heath felt about and found that a boulder, no less than two feet in diameter had trapped the boy’s legs to the ground, not to mention likely breaking one or both of them. Kneeling beside the boy, the major struggled to free him, pulling at the stone with all his might, trying to ignore the protesting of his injured shoulder. For a moment nothing happened. Then the stone shifted and finally slid off. Cramer was screaming in agony, but Heath ignored it as he lifted the boy out of the mud.
Cradling the private in his arms like a baby, Heath – for the last time – ran. His lungs felt as though somebody had filled them with methane and struck a match. His head was spinning with pain and he could scarcely focus on the light at the end of the tunnel.
Suddenly he was there. Lawrence and Durst had just dropped back into the tunnel to come rescue him and they caught Heath and the boy.
“Major, I’m so sorry! I thought you were right behind…”
But Heath wasn’t listening. He could feel himself collapse and then felt himself lifted through the hole from the tunnel into the trench above. He could feel wind and rain on his cheeks and fresh air in his lungs. He was safe, his men were safe, the trench was safe and he had done his duty.
In the middle of a filthy, rat-infested trench, Major David Heath felt safe. As shells squealed overhead and machinegun bullets rattled through the heavy air of no man’s land, he fell into an exhausted sleep.
This Has Got to be in Violation of Some Copyright Law
And wouldn't you just love to see that court case.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/11/headline-roundup-1.html
Some excerpts -
Newsweek: Former M*A*S*H stars say it's finally time to disarm the military
LA Times: Like many Town Hall protesters, Hassan motivated by rage, pattern baldness
MSNBC: Investigation: Ft. Hood Killer Had Access to Fox, Talk Radio, Right-Wing
Blogs, Defiant Palin rejects calls to apologize
Boston Globe: Experts say shootings could have easily been prevented if guns did not exist; others argue bullets must share blame
Washington Post: Shooter's former Virginia home was mere hours from Jerry Falwell compound
Rolling Stone: Sensitive, artistic outsider said ostracized by Army jocks, "in crowd"
New York Times: Lessons of Ft. Hood: Military Bases Need More Mental Health Professionals
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Fort Hood... Again
Nidal Hassan was in contact with noted Islamist for "academic" reasons.
Taliban warns, "The recent attack on the military base in Texas warns that if the occupation policy of the American rulers continues in this way, without them folding the carpets of occupation and transgression in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is natural then that incidents and attacks similar to Texas will spread to the Pentagon and other American military centres." Talk about doing American Muslims a big favour.
Canada's Naturally Reigning Party
Is not doing so well.
Four By-Elections, four third place finishes. At least they probably did better than the Green Party.
I wish that we could have an election soon, might finally get a Conservative majority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
