Repost from the National Post with an Erroneous Headline

‘Your God is wrong’: Anti-abortion Prolife activist to appeal conviction, saying judge attacked religion

  Jun 7, 2012 – 6:00 AM ET | Last Updated: Jun 7, 2012 10:23 AM ET

Steve Jalsevac/LifeSiteNews.com

Steve Jalsevac/LifeSiteNews.com

Mary Wagner (R) with fellow anti-abortion protester Linda Gibbons. Both have lengthy criminal records and jail time due to abortion clinic protests.

The lawyer for an anti-abortion activist jailed for entering a Toronto abortion clinic last fall is appealing her conviction, saying he thinks the judge may have left the impression of bias during a verbal skirmish in which the judge told his client: “Your God’s wrong.”

Justice S. F. Clements launched a “conditional attack on the Christian God” during the March 21 hearing at the Ontario Court of Justice, in which Mary Wagner was convicted of mischief and breach of probation, apellate lawyer Peter Boushy plans to argue during the forthcoming appeal hearing.

“I think it could be certainly argued on appeal that the justice’s conditional attack on the Christian God, along with the tenor and content of his other comments that day, gives rise to a reasonable apprehension — and I stress the word ‘apprehension’— of bias by [the judge],” Mr. Boushy said in a statement to the Post.

Court transcripts reveal a tense exchange, first between Judge Clements and one of Ms. Wagner’s supporters in court and then between the judge and Ms. Wagner.

After the man was ordered out of the court by Judge Clements, the judge turned to Ms. Wagner and said “Ms. Wagner is smiling. You don’t get it, do you Ms. Wagner?” before saying she does not know what the law means.

She asked him to explain it.

“If you think that you have some higher moral authority that allows you to break [the] rule of law, that allows you to go to that clinic, to allow you to disregard the rights of other people to use that clinic, to disrespect those people, then you are wrong, and your God is wrong, because no God would tolerate that,” Judge Clements said.

Later in their exchange she said she would not stay away from abortion clinics in the future.

“You are going to go to jail,” the judge said.

He found Ms. Wagner guilty of entering Bloor West Village Women’s Clinic the morning of Nov. 8, 2011, approaching patients in the waiting room, refusing to leave and pushing on a door being closed on her by staff to prevent her entry into a secure area of the clinic. Ms. Wagner was already on probation for a previous mischief charge and was barred from contacting clinic staff or being at least 500 metres from its doors when she appeared that day.

In her victim impact statement, clinic co-owner Patricia Hasen said Ms. Wagner returns to the clinic despite her legal restrictions, adding that it puts employees in an “emotional tailspin when a staff member says ‘Mary is here.’”

A devout Catholic, Ms. Wagner’s pro-life activism has earned her a lengthy criminal record made up of mischief charges and jail time connected to her abortion clinic protests in Toronto and Vancouver. She is friends with Linda Gibbons, a well-known anti-abortion activist who will hear from the Supreme Court this week if she had been appropriately dealt with in the courts. In fact, Ms. Wagner and Ms. Gibbons encountered one another in prison shortly after the November incident, friend Leeda Crawford said.

‘If you think that you have some higher moral authority that allows you to break [the] rule of law … then you are wrong, and your God is wrong, because no God would tolerate that’

In his sentencing, Judge Clements dismissed a joint submission from Crown counsel Derek Ishak and defence lawyer Russell Browne that took time served into account, saying it was “not substantial enough if she is not going to abide by court orders.”

“You know, get a grip. She sure wouldn’t like it if somebody was standing on her doorstep everyday pushing her around. If I had the power to do that, that is what I would do. I would have somebody in her face every day, go and rattle her door. How would she like that?” Judge Clements went on to say.

Mr. Boushy said he will raise concerns about that comment as well as the judge’s exchange with Ms. Wagner over what is meant by the rule of law.

“There is simply no authority under the criminal code for a judge to so engage an accused during the sentencing process since all accused have the time honoured right to remain silent,” Mr. Boushy’s statement went on to say. “And this is for good reason. Because soon after this engagement, a fairly extensive debate ensued between Mary Wagner and the judge, the fruits of which the judge then used as an aggravating factor on sentence.”

Judge Clements sentenced Ms. Wagner to an extra three months in jail. She was released May 21st, and is now in Illinois taking a religious course, Ms. Crawford said.

Mr. Boushy will get the date for the appeal hearing later this month and doesn’t expect it to take place until fall.

Judge Clements did not respond to requests for comment.

National Post

The War on Infant Girls

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U2H3ZDnBtuw]

Now we’re just like China! This video is from the US perspective, so what is happening here is that Planned Parenthood is encouraging the young woman to use Medicaid, not to deliver a healthy baby, but to learn the gender of the child so that it can be aborted if it is a girl.

In Canada, one doesn’t have to be so sneaky–we’re all on “Medicaid,” and so every taxpayer funds abortions as a matter of policy.

More at LiveAction.org

Teens & Retirement: Two 20th Century Phenomena We Didn’t Get Right.

Teens & Retirement: two 20th century phenomena we didn’t get right.

The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw unprecedented economic growth and the improvement of life for many in the Western world. Out of this came two phenomena, teenagers and retirees. Although on opposite ends of life, they are intricately connected.

As life became more industrialised, education and work moved from the home to the factory and school. Child labour was reduced and education was encouraged, so that rather than girls starting motherhood in their teen years, and boys apprenticing during that time, teen years began to be a time of education and preparation. In the late 20th and early 21st centuries this time has increased to nearly 30, as education and career development set marriage and family aside. Sexual relations, however, for very many, begin in the teen years and continue with multiple partners until some sort of monogamous relationship is established. This is proved disastrous to the moral, emotional, spiritual, and economic health of children born to families only of “half” siblings, as many mothers bear children to different father s on each occasion. Teen bodies are ready for childbearing, but society has changed to the point that teen marriage and childbearing is scandalous and unsustainable. Given the educational requirements for even the simplest employment, teen marriage and childbearing is a sure ticket to permanent welfare.

At the other end of the age spectrum is retirement. Modern social security began in the United States during the Great Depression, and it was seen as a way to make way for younger, healthier workers and to free up families from the need to care for elders. Of course it was assumed that one wouldn’t live much past the 65 year retirement age. No one could see at that time the amazing improvement in health care from birth to old age, decreasing infant mortality and extending life well into the eighties as a matter of routine. The same scenario has been repeated in most Western countries, some predating the US model, some preceding it.

So education, work, and care of elders has been outsourced from the family to schools, factories, and nursing homes, paid for by social programs.

What this has meant practically is that families are smaller because they can be. Declining birthrates in Western nations attest to this. Mark Steyn has argued that of the developed European countries, Canada, US, Austrailia, Russia and Japan, only the US replicates itself by birthrate, and that only barely. The rest are dependent upon immigration. Large families, once seen as a guarantee against high infant mortality and as a means to support elders who cannot work, are now seen as unsustainable. This is largely because along with the outsourcing of education, work, and old-age care has come a massive transfer of wealth from the family to the state for education, daycare (for the majority who do work outside the home), and social programs for the aged. Add to this the expanding definition of disability, and it becomes easy to see why the family does not have the resources to have many children or to care for elders.

I wonder what the Christians thought of all this as it was developing? When work was removed from the home, and education was handed over to others, were there voices of dissent? I know that J. Gresham Machen objected to public education in his Christianity and Liberalism in the 1920’s. But as far as I know, only the Amish and Mennonite Christians resisted these trends on a practical level.

1 Timothy 5:8 strongly suggests that care of the aged is not to be left for others, either:

“But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

I think it is time for Christians to mount a Biblical response to teenagers and retirees. It is hard to resist culture, especially when it seems to improve life. But with each economic downturn, it may show that the improvements that allegedly come from our prosperity were often simply a case of borrowing against the future, and that future has arrived.

Is it possible to remove the temptation to sexual promiscuity by encouraging our teens to marry earlier, rather than putting it off? Is it not possible for Christian families to work together to help the breadwinner to accomplish the education and training necessary for gainful employment while being a father, rather than putting off fatherhood with the help of birth control and abortion? Is it not possible for younger women to be married mothers without scandal? Has the church become so infected by the world’s standards that it shames a young couple who want to marry and start a family in their late teens?

Now I know that our world is more technologically complex, and a high school diploma makes one ready for college or university, but as far as jobs go, much more training is needed. That is a reality, but is delaying marriage (and failing at celibacy) the only way to live with this?

As far as caring for the aged, the Christian church’s response may be much  more urgent. We are witnessing the end of retirement as it has been presented. Most people reading this have lived under the assumption that at age 65 (soon to be 67 in Canada), one can quit working and relax for the next 20 years. Is there a Biblical precedent for this? Is this what God intended for humanity, much less for His church? It sounds attractive, but so does all temptation. It also disappoints, as does all sin.

Again, we see that our resources are taxed to provide for retirement, but there aren’t enough taxes (nor can there be) paid to really afford it. Hence the case for large families, especially among believers. Those who are young parents now would do well to consider how many children it will take to support them when they cannot work. There will, for a while, be money flowing from governments to support the elderly, but this will be curtailed in some often cruel ways. Is it not better to plan now for the inevitable collapse of the social safety net?

In the past 100 years, as in no other time in human history, childbearing is delayed and lifespan extended. I believe we have failed to successfully plan for and manage our retirements, and to counteract the only apparent  need to delay the creation of Christian families.

Both the teenager and retiree can vanish if they are products of a false and bankrupt economy.

©2012 Scott Jacobsen