Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Politics
Mrs. Fanny B. and her children, giving pro-lifers a lesson in courage
1) Life Chain Report
2) Open Letter To The Quebec Diocese Concerning Anti-Christian Racism
3) Lawsuit Against The Quebec-Solidaire Political Party?
4) Some feedback (pro-life and pro-choice)
4.1) A member of the CHP
4.1.1) Name witheld, 2007-October-17
4.1.2) S. Jetchick, 2007-October-17
4.1.3) Name witheld, 2007-October-20
4.1.4) S. Jetchick, 2007-October-25
4.2) A member of the Quebec-Solidaire Party
5) Challenge for all those who don't see the basis for the complaint against QS
The Quebec-Solidaire provincial political party
Currently (2007-October-12), there is no lawsuit against the Quebec-Solidaire provincial political party. In a civilized society, we must first think and engage in dialogue, and after, in certain cases only, start actions before the courts.
Please note we are absolutely not trying to "gag" the Quebec-Solidaire Party, or anybody else. On the contrary, we defend freedom of expression, and we encourage public and civilized debate on abortion. In fact, that's precisely why we are complaining! Indeed, in order to have a civilized debate, Quebec-Solidaire must learn to be pro-choice, without being anti-Christian.
Please send your comments, questions, advice, to Stefan Jetchick.
This document is, for the time being, a public reflexion about the following questions:
3.2.1) Should we take Quebec-Solidaire to court, following their endorsment of the racist anti-Christian demonstration that took place in Quebec City 2007-October-07?
3.2.2) If so, before which court? Civil? Human Rights?
3.2.3) If so, by whom? The Christian Heritage Party (National)? The Christian Heritage Party (Louis-Hébert EDA)? The Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL)? The Organizing committee of Quebec Pro-Life? An ad hoc coalition?
3.2.4) If not, after what remedial measures taken by Quebec-Solidaire should we abandon the lawsuit? A public letter of apology sent to all newspapers in the Province of Quebec? A promise to organize themselves next year's pro-choice counter-demonstration, so as to keep it respectful and civilized? A promise to participate in the pro-choice/pro-life debate which should occur next year, before the Life Chain? All of the above? More? Less?
The elements of the complaint are all described in the report called The Quebec City Life Chain (2007-October-07). To make it clearer, you just need to substitute a homosexual, or a Jew, or an Afro-American, everywhere a Christian is mentioned, and one can see right away that the complaint is justified:
3.3.1) Sign saying: "If Mary had known about abortion, we would have had fewer problems", which is semantically equivalent to: "DEATH TO JESUS!" (clearly visible on several pictures, many of them taken by the pro-choicers themselves and placed copyright-free on their own web site).
3.3.2) Flyer with an explicit graphic showing a Christian (wearing a large Cross on his chest) being kicked below the belt. This flyer was handed out to everybody (both pro-lifers and pro-choicers) by the pro-choicers, during the demonstration, including the motorists stopped at the traffic light. (We have one of those flyers, and several eyewitnesses of their broad distribution and their contents.)
3.3.3) Written endorsement of the demonstration by Quebec-Solidaire, on the said flyer. Confirmed also by Internet reports, like: "Apart from the libertarians, a good delegation of Quebec-Solidaire, only political organization unassociated to the libertarian Left to have officially approved the action, was present" [«Chaîne de la vie»: cinq fois plus de pro-choix que d'anti-avortement!, downloaded 2007-October-12 at 16h47], or the Internet copy of the wording of the flyer, including the graphic mentioned in #3.2 here above [Appel à une contre-manifestation pro-choix, downloaded 2007-October-12 at 16h51].
3.3.4) The general atmosphere of the whole pro-choice counter-demonstration, which was clearly anti-Christian (see any eyewitness of the event).
7105, St-Hubert bureau 304
info (add the at sign) quebecsolidaire.net
Catholic Civil Rights League
120 Eglinton Ave. East, Suite 500
Christian Heritage Party (National)
P.O. Box 4958
Quebec Human Rights Tribunal
(La Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse)
575, rue Saint-Amable
quebec (add the at sign) cdpdj.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: [member of the CHP] Sent: 17 octobre 2007 12:34 To: Stefan Jetchick Subject: Re: Should we run with this: Lawsuit Against The Quebec-Solidaire Political Party? Hi Stefan I've pondered your question and come to this conclusion.... If we take them to court, we are trying to silence them. Thus the freedom of speech which we seek, we would deny to them. Whether or not we like the message, they have not laid hand to a person. This is similar to silencing Hugh Owens. Although Hugh's message (2 males holding hands, in a red circle, with a line through it, with a Bible quote) is obviously less violent. We have to determine how much freedom a person should have to speak. What are the limits? Could the line through Hugh's ad have been an indication that he wanted them wiped out? etc. It's a can of worms, in my humble opinion. [Name witheld]
Hello [Name witheld], >> If we take them to court, we are trying to silence them. Thus >> the freedom of speech which we seek, we would deny to them. Distinguo. If this is the kind of "freedom of speech" that the CHP wants, then I want to leave the CHP as fast as I can! >> We have to determine how much freedom a person should have >> to speak. Amen! And since we claim all Canadians should vote for us because we know how to govern better than the Conservatives, the Liberals, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, etc., then we should know what the limits are! >> It's a can of worms, in my humble opinion. Distinguo for the "can of worms". Concedo to "It is a difficult and very important question". But Nego to "We do not have the skills to answer this question". Handing out a flyer with a picture of somebody kicking somebody else below the belt is clearly, ... well, below the belt! It should not be considered something that is protected by "freedom of expression", but on the contrary, something condemned by our anti-hatred laws. Showing such a graphic doesn't help any social debate. It doesn't matter whether the graphic shows a white man kicking a black man, or a heterosexual kicking a homosexual, etc. It is, in my opinion, beyond the limit. For the sign saying the equivalent of "Death to Jesus", I think it's the same situation. Yes, we must protect freedom of expression, and that is why I'm not complaining about their signs that said relevant and courteous things like: "Abortion is not murder", or "We don't want your moral order", or "We don't want to return to the past", etc. I disagree with those signs, but they do not promote hatred of Christians, they just promote the pro-choice position. But things are different for a sign saying: "Death to Muhammad", or "May the Dalai-Lama be locked into an airtight container filled only with carbon monoxide", or "If the Virgin Mary had known about abortion, we wouldn't have as many problems today". There is a difference between asserting a different Faith (or lack thereof), and attacking the Founder of a religion. I have nothing against a sign saying: "I believe Jesus is not the Lord", or "My God is called Science", etc. But "Death to Jesus" is clearly hateful toward all Christians. >> Could the line through Hugh's ad have been an >> indication that he wanted them wiped out? Such problems are one of the reasons why I tend present my most controversial opinions in text, not with pictures. For example, my Reading Lists for pro-choicers or homosexuals don't show pictures of pro-choicers being kicked below the belt, or persons with same-sex attractions being "wiped out" graphically or otherwise. I recommend avoiding pictures which can be misinterpreted. Cheers! Stefan
-----Original Message----- From: [Name witheld] Sent: 20 octobre 2007 15:50 To: Stefan Jetchick Subject: Re: Should we run with this: Lawsuit Against The Quebec-Solidaire Political Party? Hi Stefan [...] You have indicated that you partially agree. I ask that you outline the parameters of how much freedom each person should have. [I see at least three possibilities]: 1) People do not have a right to draw a picture which somebody else might find offensive. Please include how we are going to determine what each person in Canada will find offensive, i.e. people have been charged with human rights violations for speaking against the practice of homosexuality because it hurt somebody's feelings. Must I consider in all my communications just how sensitive every person in Canada is? 2) People have a right to draw pictures that might be deemed offensive by some people. However, who decides what is offensive? Is it a changing standard based on societal norms? If societal norms change, does the first person who didn't realise it and stepped on somebody's toes, face charges? 3) People may draw whatever pictures they wish, however, they may not act with the same freedom. There is no doubt in any body's mind what is legal and what is not. I may draw but may not act. I may hurt somebody's feelings but I may not physically hurt somebody. There is no subjectivity here. Feelings are subjective, actions are not. [...] Limits cannot be subjective, it leaves it up to the discretion of those making the judgment. This judge may agree but this one disagree. We can never be sure what is right and what is wrong. If we have an objective standard, then everyone knows what is legal and what is not. [...] Let's determine a little further then... Would Superman beating up the bad guy be acceptable or not acceptable? Why is it okay for him to assault somebody in a film, but not okay for me to assault somebody in picture? Would it be a violation of rights to display a picture from the holocaust? It shows dead Jews, so therefore technically it could be classed as hatred. Or, should anti-hatred laws be only enforceable if it presents one side of the discussion? In other words, it's ok for Jews to show pictures of the holocaust but not okay for neo-Nazis to show pictures of the holocaust? What if we're not sure about the intent of an organisation showing the pictures of the holocaust? Would we require a written statement saying that they're showing it historically and not as an endorsement? What if I disagree with their statement and believe they are actually glorying in the death of the Jews in the picture? As long as we allow a law to be subjective, we can never be sure when we are doing something illegal. [...] While I would agree that it is ill-mannered to verbally disparage the faith someone else loves, to make it a crime is wrong. Out of love for our neighbour we should develop inhibitions about saying hateful things. It's developing manners which I see as the issue here, not whether people should be allowed to say what they wish to hurt their neighbour. [...] Some people are not articulate but are artistic. They find it difficult to express things verbally and rely on pictures. It could inhibit their ability to communicate to require written expression only. We have then seen to the needs only of the articulate members of our society. [...] O_O This is my last opinionated email! O_O I'm outta here! O_O Yours for cheerful argumentation [Name witheld] :-)
Hello again, [Name witheld], By the way, thanks again for "sparring" with me, since you raise very important and very fundamental questions. I must also begin this e-mail with a disclaimer: I'm still learning. I cannot give perfect answers to your objections yet, since I haven't studied the topic enough. But I'm working on it! >> I ask that you outline the parameters of how much freedom >> each person should have. Obviously, a totally legitimate request, to which I will gladly try to comply! >> 1) People do not have a right to draw a picture which somebody >> else might find offensive. Of course, if that is the law, we are all doomed! :-) For example, I could draw a picture of a horse, and some member of a "horse-adoring" cult could take me to court for insulting his god! The law should not state: "A picture which somebody else finds offensive, is illegal". As you correctly point out, that leads to subjective laws, which are a disaster for a country. The law should state: "A picture which the prudent man finds offensive, is illegal". That might sound harmless, or obvious, or silly, but actually, it is a very profound statement which could take us years to explore completely. The expression "prudent man" dates back to Aristotle (several centuries before Christ). The word "prudent" relates to the virtue of "prudence", and the most important kind of prudence is what makes good laws [Summa Theologica, IIa-IIae, q. 50, a. 1 and 2; Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, book 6, 5; etc.]. But isn't that just pushing the question back? How are we going to determine who is "a prudent man"? Isn't that "subjective"? That is a good question, but not a legal question. Our capacity to know truth about non-physical, non-measurable things, is a philosophical question. See Error: "Doctor, It Hurts Here, And Here, And Here!" >> Please include how we are going to >> determine what each person in Canada will find offensive. That is impossible, and irrelevant. What counts legally is not what anybody perceives as offensive, but what is really offensive. >> People have been charged with human rights violations for >> speaking against the practice of homosexuality because it hurt >> somebody's feelings. Yes. First, as far as I know, Human Rights Tribunals are a farce and must be eliminated. Second, it depends how this "practice of homosexuality" was spoken against. I know I've tried as hard as I can to be dragged before the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal, with no success so far. >> Is it a changing standard based on societal norms? Yes, in a corrupt society. In a normal society, it is a standard based on reason. >> There is no doubt in anybody's >> mind what is legal and what is not. I understand the intent of your Option #3. You want to eliminate subjectivity, thanks to Materialism. In other words, according to your Option #3, truth cannot be known with certainty in immaterial things, but we can know truth with certainty, in material things. Except, obviously, current Canadian laws demonstrate this is false. Anybody can kill any unborn child anytime, for any reason, from conception to birth. You underestimate the importance of reason. Ideas govern the world, not matter. >> Feelings are subjective, actions are not. First, as I've just pointed out, this does not prevent abuses in the Judicial System. Second, we are not talking about feelings, but about moral facts. >> Limits cannot be subjective [...] If we have an >> objective standard, then everyone knows what is legal >> and what is not. Of course, we both agree that limits must not be subjective, and that we need an objective standard. But I claim non-physical things can also be perfectly objective. >> Would Superman beating up the bad guy be acceptable or >> not acceptable. Not acceptable. Superman doesn't beat up the bad guy. Superman arrests the suspect, reads him his rights, then takes him to jail and hands him the phone so the suspect can call his lawyer. >> Why is it okay for him to assault somebody in picture It isn't OK. If a movie presents an evil man assaulting somebody, then shows that evil man being properly arrested by Superman, that is OK. Evil is presented as evil, and good as good. If a movie presents evil as good and good as evil, then it should be censored. >> Would it be a violation of rights to display a picture from the >> holocaust? It depends. If it shows this picture with the caption: "Those nice Nazis sure knew how to get rid of vermin!", that is not acceptable. If it's a history book describing what happened during World War II, it is acceptable. >> What if we're not sure about the intent >> of an organisation showing the pictures of the holocaust? Human law doesn't regulate what is technically called "the internal forum". God punishes totally private evil thoughts and intents, but human law just deals with what can be observed, directly or indirectly. >> What if I disagree with their statement and believe they >> are actually glorying in the death of the Jews in the picture? If all you have is a "belief" as you say, that is worthless. You need facts. >> While I would agree that it is ill-mannered to verbally disparage >> the faith someone else loves, to make it a crime to do so is >> wrong. Which is why I'm not talking about that. I specifically say we have a right to publicly disagree with somebody else's faith. What we don't have a right to do, is to encourage hatred and violence against other people. >> Some people are not articulate but are artistic. They find it >> difficult to express things verbally and rely on pictures. Nothing wrong with expressing yourself with pictures. But if you encourage people to hatred and violence with your pictures, that is wrong. If you are unsure whether your picture might encourage hatred and violence, then: "When in doubt, abstain". * * * * * Now, concerning this whole discussion, we have to remember: "The Beer Bottle Principle". Apparently, many years ago, a famous lawyer sued the owner of a baseball stadium. His client had been injured during a game, when some spectator high up in the bleachers threw a heavy glass beer bottle, and it fell on his client's head. This lawyer kept a brown paper bag in front of him during the whole trial. At the end of the trial, the judge asked: "What is in that paper bag?" The lawyer pulled out... a waxed paper cup. He won, and no stadium in the USA sells beer in glass bottles since then. This Principle can also be applied to signs and flyers used during a demonstration. If a prudent man can remove hatred and violence from those signs and flyers, without removing freedom of speech, then keeping that hatred and violence is wrong. As you can read elsewhere in this e-mail exchange, either with you or with the chap from the Quebec-Solidaire Party, it's quite easy to keep the pro-choice message, while removing all hatred and violence. Cheers! Stefan
-----Original Message----- From: [Anonymous] Sent: 17 octobre 2007 14:22 To: Stefan Jetchick Subject: Re: Lawsuit against Quebec-Solidaire by the Christian Heritage Party? [...] I'm not an expert in things legal, not in the least. I have more questions than answers. For example, by supporting this demonstration, up to what point did QS guarantee all the activities that occured there? [...] There are two elements brought forth here: the sign "If Mary had known about abortion, we would have had less problems" and the picture on the flyer. I'll deal with them separately. The sign appears harmless to me. In the context of the demonstration, the "problems" mentioned are those of the pro-life demands, and Jesus is the bearer of this ideology. It appears to me that one is not attacking the man, nor the whole of his symbolic, but rather to this specific aspect that is the position that we recognize of him concerning abortion. In other words, I don't read "Death to Jesus", but rather "Death to the pro-life ideology". Now, concerning the image of the flyer. My feelings are divided. I denounce all forms of violence, among them physical violence. Thus, the kick given to the Catholic Priest appears to me strongly inappropriate. Nevertheless, I add nuances to your interpretation. Considering that, on the drawing, the kick is given to a Catholic Priest (and not to a simple Christian), and that this kick is given below the belt (and not elsewhere), and that this drawing is placed on a pro-choice leaflet, then I interpret it, not as an incentive to violence against Christians, but as a rejection of the position of the Catholic Church (symbolized by the Priest) on the debate on abortion. That is my vision of things. I might be biased in my interpretation, and maybe we must not read such drawings in the way I do. Here again, legally speaking, I don't know how to "read" such a type of message. I permit myself to make a comment on the issue of abortion. I previously said I denounced all forms of violence. Well, the position of pro-lifers is in my eyes very violent! The harm it causes to a whole portion of the population is major - a historical perspective on the issue lets us become fully aware of this. Up to what point is this point of view understood on the part of Catholic pro-lifers? I know this is not the viewing angle considered by the Catholic pro-lifers on the issue, since the dogmas of the Catholic Church take precedence on these social considerations (am I mistaken?). And this is what I deplore... [...] And to conclude, I echo the book's title: the question is not to know if belief in god is good, bad or non-relevant, but to know whether it is useful or not! Oh, and what is "useful"?... We never leave this existential considerations, Albert Camus understood that well, anyway! [Anonymous] Québec solidaire www.quebecsolidaire.net
Hello [Anonymous], >> For example, by supporting this >> demonstration, up to what point did QS guarantee all the >> activities that occured there? I feel like talking about "antecedent responsibility", and "consequent responsibility". Let's assume QS didn't know what actions would be taken during that pro-choice counter-demonstration. (It's a rather questionable assumption, since even the policemen of the Quebec Provincial Police and those of the City of Quebec knew full well the reputation of the anarcho-communists who organized this counter-demonstration. Not only did they talk to me about it beforehand, but the police stayed very far away during the whole event, because they were afraid of getting hurt.) Since QS didn't know before the event, according to our assumption, QS cannot have any "antecedent responsibility". On the other hand, QS observed as we did what occured during the event. Moreover, the witnesses who were there can confirm everything, and I even made the effort of sending them my Report on the event (thanks to you among others). In my opinion, QS now has the "consequent responsibility" of denouncing the anti-Christian actions which occured during the counter-demonstration which they officially endorsed. We can arrive at the same conclusion differently. If, at our Life Chain, a group of pseudo-pro-life demonstrators started to yell "Death to abortionists!", and started handing out flyers showing a pro-choice woman being beaten up by pro-lifers, you can be certain that the next day, I'd send a public letter of apology to all the organizers of the pro-choice counter-demonstration, with C.C. to all the media, and I would post it on my personal web site, as well as the web site for Quebec Pro-Life. Not only would I do all these things the day after, but during our pro-life demonstration, I would intervene with all possibilities at my disposal. First, I would physically expell these people from our group. Then, I'd get my troups to yell all together something like: "God wants to save all sinners, even the abortionists!", to try to drown out the pseudo-pro-life idiots. I'd also try to go see as soon as possible the pro-choice leaders on the other side of the street, to tell them I condemned these pseudo-pro-lifers, and that they were not part of our group, etc. But wait! There is more! Not only would I do all these things during our pro-life demonstration, but I already do things before our demonstrations, to avoid such deviations. We have a Code of Conduct which is very visible on our web site, and which is handed out to the pro-life participants. This Code clearly states the necessity of being non-violent and courteous. Moreover, the messages on our signs are "cast in bronze"; we don't choose them, and we must show them all, and we don't have permission to show any other ones. We collaborate as far as possible with the police forces, whether Provincial or Municipal, as well as the security services of the CHUL and the Place Laurier shopping mall. In other words, a group of demonstrators that really wants to be courteous, respectful and democratic, can be so very easily. You just need a bit of good will, and the means will follow naturally. Quebec-Solidaire has the civic duty of having this good will. >> The sign appears harmless to me [...] I don't read "Death >> to Jesus", but rather "Death to the pro-life ideology". I absolutely agree that this sign means, among others, "Death to the pro-life ideology". I also totally agree with you that a sign that literally says: "Death to the pro-life ideology", is a perfectly acceptable sign in a democratic and pluralistic society. Except we have to remain in contact with reality. It was not written "Death to the pro-life ideology" on that sign. Jesus is the only child of Mary, so wishing abortion for Mary, is wishing the death of Jesus. As opposed to our Canadian laws, pro-lifers don't consider that a human person starts to exist only after childbirth. On the contrary, and especially in the case of Jesus, it's right from the first instant of conception that we're dealing with a human person. (You remember the "Hail Mary, full of grace"? You can go read those words in the Gospel according to Saint Luke, chapter 1, verse 28. It is what Christians call the Annunciation. A few instants later the Virgin Mary says she "wants this pregnancy" with all her heart, and at that moment God-the-Son takes flesh, it's the Incarnation. I'm reminding you these things, not because you agree with the Bible, but to prove to you without a shadow of a doubt that wishing an abortion for Mary, is wishing the death of Jesus.) Moreover, Jesus is the Founder of the Christian religion. And to make things worse, saying "Death to Muhammad" is not as bad as saying "Death to Jesus". Muslims don't consider Muhammad to be God, whereas Christians believe totally that Jesus is really God. >> Now, concerning the image of the flyer [...] I >> interpret it, not as an incentive to violence against >> Christians, but as a rejection of the position of the >> Catholic Church (symbolized by the Priest) on the debate >> on abortion. Here again, I totally agree with you that this image means, among others, the rejection of the Catholic Church's position on abortion. Except that is not the only message of that drawing. Imagine a bit what would have been a drawing that really meant: "We reject the Catholic Church's position on abortion". For example, they could have drawn a policman blocking the path, politely but firmly, to a Catholic Priest, and therefore letting through a pregnant woman who was headed toward a building where it was written: "Family Planning Clinic". That drawing would have clearly meant: "The Church's position on abortion is wrong, and we want the authorities to defend women's rights". No violence, no hatred. Hitting a Catholic Priest is a far more serious act than hitting a simple Christian, just as hitting a General is worse than hitting a simple soldier, or hitting a Judge is worse than hitting a simple clerk. If hitting a Catholic Priest is good, then with greater reason it's good to hit a simple Christian. Hitting someone below the belt is more serious than hitting him above the belt. It's another way of saying: "Even low blows become good blows, when they are meted out to sub-humans". >> That is my vision of things. I might be biased in my >> interpretation No problem. I have a miracle solution. Just sign this form and mail it back to me! >> the position of pro-lifers is in my eyes very >> violent! I think I might perhaps understand in what sense you qualify our position as "violent". Suppose, for example, that I wanted to go to the hospital to have my infected appendix removed, and that "pro-appendix-lifers" tried to block my path, while holding signs saying things like: "Appendectomy is Murder!" I would be angry, and very worried too! If I delayed my appendectomy too much, I would risk dying from peritonitis! I would consider these people to be nuts and violent, since it's my body, and I have the right to a surgical operation that will save my life! On the other hand, you too have to make an effort with your imagination. Suppose a mother, with her two young children, a little 2 year-old girl and a young 5 year-old boy. This woman would scream out: "I will have the children that I want, when I want! And today, I don't want any children!" So this mother grabs a kitchen knife and gets ready to slit the throats of her two kids. If a policeman arrived just in time, and that he grabbed this woman's wrist and prevented her from killing her two children, would you say this policeman is "violent"? No, of course not. So we end up, once again, in front of the most important issue of the debate between pro-choicers and pro-lifers: What is killed by an abortion? If what is killed by an abortion is not a human person, then I agree with you that refusing access to abortion is a violation of women's fundamental rights. >> the dogmas >> of the Catholic Church take precedence on these social >> considerations By the way, the Catholic Church's position on abortion has no connection whatsoever with Faith or dogmas. It's an issue of natural morality, i.e. the reasons to condemn abortion are accessible to all, whether they have Faith or not. If you ever want to read up on our position on abortion, I recommend: "A Reading List for Pro-Choicers". >> And to conclude, I echo the book's title: the question is >> not to know if belief in god is good, bad or non-relevant, >> but to know whether it is useful or not! You have to be careful with Pragmatism. It's the favorite theory of Nazis. If exterminating Jews is useful for the German people... Cheers! Stefan
You think the complaint against the Quebec-Solidaire Party is baseless? No problem! Just print out the following form, sign it, date it, and send it to me. I'll post your form on my web site.
WARNING: Please consult your lawyer (and your psychiatrist) before signing this!
I undersigned hereby assert that Canada must tenaciously defend the inalienable right of citizens to publicly say things like "Death to Muhammad", or "Death to faggots", as well as the right of handing out flyers showing a Jew or a homosexual being bashed. Signed: ___________________________________ Date: ___________________________________ Address: ___________________________________
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Politics