The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Thursday, May 5, 2022

Moloch Worshippers Fear Their Idol’s Stranglehold on North America is Weakening

It would appear that the Supreme Court of the United States of America is about to overturn that body’s own infamous ruling in the 1973 case of Jane Roe et al. v. Henry Wade, District Attorney of Dallas Country.   It so appears becomes somebody – unidentified as of the time of this writing – leaked the initial draft of the majority opinion ruling written by Justice Samuel Alito in the case of Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of Mississippi Department of Health, et al., v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, et al. to Politico on the second of May.   The following day Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed the authenticity of the document.


Predictably, liberals, progressives, and leftists – since their posturing in response to the ruling, when they aren’t breaking down in tears, is rather aggressive as if intended to evoke the image of lions, tigers, and bears, I shall add “oh my” - are all up in a flap about this.   To hear them yap about it, one would think that the immediate effect of overturning Roe v. Wade would be that the very next day no woman anywhere in the Yankee republic would be able to get a legal abortion and would have to resort to letting some quack rip out her insides with a wire hanger in a back alley or – and this option is more upsetting to these types than the former – finish out her pregnancy and give birth without giving in to the unnatural impulse to murder her child while it is still unborn.   For all one knows they actually do think it works this way.  


This, of course, is not how it would play out.   Before the 1973 ruling, most American abortion laws were those enacted by the constituent states of their republic.   The Court, by ruling that the Fourteenth Amendment provides constitutional protection to a pregnant woman’s choice to have an abortion for the first two trimesters, both struck down a battery of state laws limiting and prohibiting abortion and essentially transferred the entire matter from state to federal jurisdiction.   An overturning of that ruling would have the effect of returning that matter to its original jurisdiction.   Whether abortion would again be prohibited would be up to the governments of the states.   In the history of the American republic, the trajectory has been away from a very decentralized federalism – that of the 1777 Articles of Confederation would represent it at its most decentralized – to a more centralized unitary nation-state – what the Americans now call their Constitution, the document drafted in 1787 which went into effect in 1789 was the first step towards this, subsequent steps have tended to coincide with America’s military conflicts including and perhaps especially their internecine conflict of 1861-1865, which was fought over, among other things, the conflict between decentralized federalism and highly centralized nationalism.   Americans who identify themselves and liberal and progressive – from an older Tory perspective such as my own the entire American tradition is liberal and progressive, of course – tend to be in favour of this process of increasing centralization.  A certain school within American “conservatism” – not those who are ordinarily called “neoconservatives” per se, although there is a lot of overlap between the two groups, but rather the followers of the late Harry V. Jaffa of Claremont McKenna College (1) – are of the same view as the progressives.   Thus, the liberals and progressives have another reason, other than the threat to their sacred sacrament of Molochian baby murder, to object to the forthcoming Supreme Court reversal, although it is not one that seems to be emphasized  or much brought up at all in their rhetoric.


Canadian progressive are also having conniptions about what is happening south of the border.    The Prime Minister, whose top priority is projecting the image of being the most progressive leader in the world and whose lowest priority is doing the job to which he was elected, said “The right to choose is a woman’s right and a woman’s right alone.  Every woman in Canada has a right to a safe and legal abortion.  We’ll never back down from protecting and promoting women’s rights in Canada and around the world.”   Interesting words coming from the man who has spent much of the last two months trying to escalate the Russo-Ukrainian War into a global conflict that would endanger the lives of every man, woman, and child on the planet, seemingly in a “Wag the Dog” attempt to deflect attention from growing domestic discontent with his policies and his grossly heavy-handed response to such discontent.     Jimmy Dhaliwal, the clown who leads the official socialist party, seldom if ever opens his mouth except to stick his foot in it and make a fool out of himself, but this time he outdid himself.  “We know that when abortion rights are denied or when abortion services are denied, the result is women die” he said.   That is not remotely as indisputable as the fact that when abortion is permitted and allowed babies die.  


Does a woman die every time she is denied an abortion? 


Obviously the answer is no.


Does a woman die every time she gets an illegal abortion?


Again, obviously the answer is no.


Does a baby die every time an abortion is performed? 


Yes.   Absolutely yes.   This is because killing a baby is essential to the very meaning of abortion.   It is a sine qua non.   Without a baby being killed, there is no abortion.


Now, it should be noted that in Canada the situation is quite different from in the United States.   The statute banning abortion that eventually became section 251 of the Criminal Code was passed in 1869, two years after Confederation.   The abortion issue has always been a Dominion rather than a provincial matter in Canada because constitutionally criminal law falls under the sole jurisdiction of the Queen in the Dominion Parliament.   In the Dominion of Canada, where the Fathers of Confederation wisely established a strong central government in the hopes of avoiding a conflict like the one the American federation had gone through earlier in the same decade as Confederation, and where progressive constitutional subversion has generally taken the form of Americanization the historical trajectory favoured by the progressive left has not been strictly one of centralization, per se, but rather a combination of centralization and decentralization in which the federal government, through hook and crook, grabbed to itself powers allotted to the provinces in 1867, while shrugging off onto the provinces responsibilities that had originally been placed on the federal government.


In 1968 Pierre Trudeau, upon succeeding Lester Pearson as leader of the Liberal Party and Prime Minister of Canada, introduced a bill to amend section 251 of the Criminal Code.   The bill passed in 1969 and subsection 4 was introduced which established Therapeutic Abortion Committees in accredited Canadian hospitals.  These were boards of three doctors, who would issue certificates declaring an abortion to be necessary for medical reasons.   If they did so, an abortion would then be permitted in an accredited hospital.   This was the only exception, otherwise the general ban on abortion remained.  Ironically, it was this new clause introducing an exception brought in by Trudeau that the Supreme Court of Canada found objectionable when it ruled that section 251 violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the case of Dr. Henry Morgantaler, Dr. Leslie Frank Smoling, and Dr. Robert Scott v. Her Majesty the Queen (1988).   The Charter was another innovation of Trudeau’s, having been added to the constitution in 1982, and apart from which the Supreme Court would not have had this American-style power to overturn the acts of Queen-in-Parliament in this way.  


Now, given what we have just observed, in the extremely unlikely event that our Supreme Court were to follow the American example and reverse its 1988 ruling this, in theory at least, would have the instantaneous country-wide effect that progressives mistakenly think the reversal of Roe v. Wade would have in the United States.    It would restore the status quo ante of 1988.   This writer would prefer the status quo ante of 1869-1969, but 1969-1988 is better than post-1988.   This might help explain why our progressives are behaving so ridiculously about something happening south of the border – if they actually understand the differences I have just explained, which is highly doubtful.


Another reason why the shift away from abortion-on-demand in the Yankee republic has the knickers of Canadian progressives all tied up in a knot is the fact that their position is not remotely as settled and secure up here as they have long pretended it to be, they know this full well to be the case, and are petrified that their vulnerability is about to be exposed.     This is evident in their behaviour.   The Prime Minister expelled pro-life members of his party prior to the Dominion election in which he became Prime Minister, and Jimmy Dhaliwal’s predecessor did the same to pro-life members of the socialist party.   The Conservative Party is constantly under pressure from both of these parties to whip or expel members who are perceived as likely to “re-open” the abortion debate in Parliament and to repudiate the pro-life segment of its base.  These are not the actions of people who feel their position is secure.   Nor is the Prime Minister’s directing his Finance Minister to terminate the charitable status of pro-life organizations that offer help to unwed expecting mothers or the government’s persistent efforts to bring the internet under their control to hinder the spread of views they don’t like and disagree with which would obviously include opposition to their stance on abortion.   Even their recent proposal to make the Holocaust into the essential tenet of a new state faith demonstrates their lack of confidence in the security of their position on abortion – I will let you draw your own inferences about what it says about their confidence in the historical narrative about the event to be so euhemerized (2) – since the proposed law would criminalize the denial, condoning or diminishing of the Holocaust, into which last category making comparisons between the slaughter of the unborn and the Holocaust, as pro-life activists are prone to do, might be taken as falling and almost certainly is intended by the Liberals to be taken as falling.    All of this demonstrates just how insecure the progressive left considers their sacred “abortion rights” to be.  


They have cause for this lack of confidence in the security of their position.  Contrary to the way progressives talk, the present status quo in Canada with regards to abortion was not the result of a debate, where the progressive side won, and consensus was achieved.     Nor do the court rulings that produced the present status quo quite say what progressives claim they say.  The Supreme Court of Canada did not rule in the Morgantaler decision that a woman had a “right to an abortion” per se.   It found section 251 to violate a woman’s rights, but these were rights specifically named as such in the Charter, not a “right to an abortion” which is not so named.


A number of smaller rulings made by the Supreme Court of Canada shortly after the Morgantaler ruling – Chantal Daigle v. Jean-Guy Tremblay (1989), Joseph Borowksi v. the Attorney-General of Canada (1989), and Mary C. Sullivan and Gloria J. Lemay v. Her Majesty the Queen (1991) are often taken as finishing the task of establishing “abortion rights” in Canada.   As with the Morgantaler ruling itself, however, the progressive take reads more into these than what the Court actually declared.   These cases all deal in one way or another with the question of the personhood and rights of the foetus.   In the Borowski case, the complainant had challenged section 251(4) of the Criminal Code on the opposite grounds to those of Henry Morgantaler – he complained that the therapeutic exception violated the rights of the foetus under Sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.   Joseph Borowski, a pro-life activist who had previously served in Ed Schreyer’s NDP government here in Manitoba a fact entirely irrelevant to this discussion except as an illustration of just how far to the intolerant totalitarian loonie left that party has moved since then, had lost before the Court of Queen’s Bench and the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan.   The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear his final appeal.   While the progressive take on this is that the Supreme Court thereby approved the lower courts’ rulings that the foetus is not protected by Charter rights, the Supreme Court’s decision was based upon the fact that the Section Borowski was challenging had already been overturned, and thus he had lost his standing to pursue his appeal any further.    In Daigle v. Tremblay, the Supreme Court overturned the previous ruling of the Quebec Court of Appeal in a case which involved a man seeking an injunction against his ex-girlfriend who was seeking to terminate her pregnancy with their child.   While the Supreme Court based its decision on the question of the legal personhood of the foetus, it excluded from its ruling the question of the foetus’ position under the federal Charter, because this case was a civil matter not involving the government.   None of these rulings, on its own, or taken collectively, constitute a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada that the foetus is not a person with legal rights under the Charter.   Indeed, the Supreme Court very much gave the impression that it did not want to rule on that question one way or another and closed off avenues of litigation precisely in order to avoid ever being put in the position to have to do so.   Furthermore, all of these rulings would fall like a stack of dominoes should Morgantaler ever fall, and Morgantaler can stand only so long as the Supreme Court is able to practice the clever deflection just described.


In its Morgantaler ruling the Supreme Court referred the matter back to Parliament, suggesting that they pass new Charter-compatible legislation to take the place of section 251.    Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservative government attempted to do this twice.   The first time took place shortly after the Supreme Court’s ruling.   The bill was an attempt at a compromise – easier access to early abortions, complete ban on late abortions – and was defeated in the House because both sides rejected the compromise.   The second attempt, the following year, would have basically restored the status quo ante.   It would have banned all abortions except those where the woman’s doctor believed her health or life to be jeopardized by the pregnancy.   The bill passed in the House by nine votes.   It was defeated, however, when the Senate split evenly on it, constituting a defeat and the government did not press the issue.    Note that the bill which was more strongly anti-abortion did better in the House than the bill which was more of a compromise.   This is not what a society settling the abortion debate by arriving at a pro-abortion consensus looks like.


Progressives further like to maintain that public opinion is on their side on this issue.   While it is correct to say that the public is more slanted towards the progressive view today than it was in 1989, opinion polls on the matter are frequently designed to skew the results towards to progressive side and need to be read in terms of what is not asked or spelled out, as well as what is.   If, for example, those polled are presented with a choice between the present status quo with no explanation of what that status quo is and the pre-1969 status quo, the majority will choose the former.   If, however, it is explained that the present status quo means that abortion is available and paid for by the taxpayer with no legal restrictions whatsoever right up to the moment of birth, support for it drops considerably.   If asked about restrictions on third-trimester abortions rather than an outright blanket ban, support rises from very low into a solid majority.   Explain to Canadians what the intact dilation and extraction method of abortion is all about and support for restrictions rises further.  Neither I, who would like to see a return to a blanket ban on abortion without exceptions, nor the Prime Minister, who wants the present status quo preserved at all costs and would bitterly oppose any new restrictions on abortion, even a ban on the procedure mentioned in the last sentence, can claim widespread public support for our positions if the public is provided with a truthful and complete explanation of what the Prime Minister’s position actually amounts to.   This does not matter in the slightest to me as I see the protection of the lives of the innocent as a duty placed on civil authority by God and in no way requiring the support of popular opinion.   It ought to bother the Prime Minister since he is always shooting his mouth off about “democracy” although by this term he seems to mean his right to do what he wants and govern autocratically as an elected dictator for the duration of his term, with no accountability between elections to Queen-in-Parliament, the public, constitutional law, or God.  


The Prime Minister could, of course, get out of this dilemma by basing his position on a higher law that trumps public opinion and the laws governments pass, but think about what that higher law would have to look like.   It would be a law that gives one specific category of human beings – women – a right unique to themselves to decide whether another specific category of human beings – pre-birth babies – lives or dies.   Some “higher law”!  (3)  Note that the same people who believe that a woman has a special right to life or death over her unborn child by virtue of the fact that the child is growing within the woman’s body have been saying for two years now that no person – man, woman, or whatever – has a right to choose with regards to his, her or its own body when it comes to deciding whether to have a newly invented, not-yet-fully-tested, foreign substance injected into it.  By contrast, the higher law to which I appeal in maintaining my own support for the pre-1969 status quo ante against widespread popular opinion is the right to life bestowed upon all human beings by their Creator, forfeitable only by capital crime, of which the unborn are innocent, which civil society has a duty to protect and an extra duty to do so in the case of the unborn because they are completely dependent and vulnerable and unable to speak for or defend themselves.


My higher law is clearly superior in every way to the Prime Minister’s.  


Whether considered in terms of the court rulings that produced it, informed public opinion about it, or the ethical philosophy underlying it, the entire position of the Prime Minister and other Canadian progressives on abortion is not the sturdy fortress they pretend it to be but rather resembles a house of cards that could be toppled at any minute.   No wonder they are having kittens at the thought of the blow the similar house of cards is about to take in the country next door.


 (1)   To be fair to the late Prof. Jaffa, while he supported the sort of constitutional thinking evoked by the American Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, he opposed the ruling itself, and, indeed, in his debates with Robert Bork took the position that natural law and the American constitution provided an absolute protection to the life of the foetus.   

(2)   Euhemerism, taken from the name of the 4th century BC court mythographer of Cassander of Macedon, usually refers to a method of interpreting myths, i.e., as having arisen out of historical events.    Euhemerus, for example, argued that Zeus was originally a king of Crete, whom subsequent Greeks venerated as the king of the gods of Olympus.   The method usually begins with the acknowledged myths of a people and works backwards to find the history behind them.   The verb related to this word that I have used here usually has the meaning of taking a figure from myth and placing him in history.   I have used it in the opposite sense of converting an event from secular history into heilsgeschichte, similar to what is meant by deifying in reference to individual figures.

(3)  “The decision of the Supreme Court concerning abortion could be seen as comedy – if it did not concern the slaughter of the young.  Any laughter is quelled by a sense of desolation for our country.  Yet the comedy too must be looked at to understand our political institutions.  The comedy arises from the fact that the majority of the judges used the language of North American liberalism to say ‘yes’ to the very core of fascist thought – the triumph of the will.  Their decision is a good example of Huey Long’s wise dictum: ‘When fascism comes to America it will come in the name of democracy.’   The court says yes to those who claim the right to mastery over their own bodies, even if that mastery includes the killing of other human beings.” George Grant, “The Triumph of the Will”, published in Denyse O’Leary ed., The Issue is Life: A Christian Response to Abortion in Canada, Burlington, Welsh Publishing, 1988.

No comments:

Post a Comment