Editorial

David Curtin, Editor-in-chief

Voters Have the Power to Burst Bubble Zones

Imagine the following scenario, if you will: A local hit-man operates out of a store-front made to look like a legitimate business. There's a huge demand for his services; so for the sake of efficiency, and to ensure the bodies won't start piling up on the streets, he has his clients bring their victims to him at his office. The people they want rubbed out are the invisible types who can't protest or resist being rounded up and led to the slaughter.

A few people in the neighbourhood realize what's going on, but they fear going up against the gangsters and their goons. One day, they dare to gather outside the hit-man's office with signs, hoping to warn people about what's happening, and to save the people on the hit-list that day. They also hope officials will finally do something about the violence going on inside the building.

After a few minutes, the police arrive in force and begin making arrests. But they don't arrest the hit-man or his clients; they arrest the protesters.

One of the officers informs the protesters that their activity is a threat to public safety. In response to an objection from a passer-by, he explains that in this society, there is no law against taking out a contract on someone, and the hit-man's business should not be impeded. He also says such protests have been violent in the past (although he can't cite any examples).

While this is going on, some of the other policemen help escort the hit-man's clients into the building, so that no one will miss an appointment. Finally, the hit-man and the officers shake hands, and the protesters are hauled away in a paddy wagon.

The above scenario is perverse, outrageous, and unbelievable; but it's not a satire or a futuristic cautionary tale. It's reality.

In Vancouver, it's illegal to stand silently outside an abortuary with a sign quoting international human rights treaties. In Calgary, it's forbidden to pray quietly on the sidewalk outside a "clinic." In Toronto, it's against the law to offer alternatives to abortion to women about to go under the knife. In Fredericton, the opening of a new abortuary is "clouded" by bogus fears that a handful of regular protesters might keep women from exercising their "rights."

Voters in Ontario will soon have a singular opportunity to change the situation in their province. An election is expected there this spring, and by taking a few simple steps, Ontarians can make a profound difference. By finding out where the candidates stand on the "bubble-zone" injunction protecting the abortion industry, by asking them what are their beliefs on the crucial life and family issues related to that injunction, and by voting accordingly, people in Ontario have a chance to elect people who will restore their civil rights, and perhaps begin to roll back the culture of death in other ways.

The current state of affairs should make us profoundly indignant, and spur us to action. If it doesn't, we're also responsible for the slaughter of innocents.

Generations of our forefathers sacrificed their freedom and even their lives to win and preserve the right to vote and all the liberties associated with that right. The right to vote is anything but trivial, and the obligation to vote—and to vote wisely—is grave indeed. We cannot decry the growing culture of death in our country if we neglect to use those means we have to make a difference.

Yes, our rights are increasingly more limited than we realize. Yes, the government and the "mainstream" media are largely pro-abortion. Yes, the odds are certainly against us. But still we have no excuse to give in to apathy or cynicism. If we imagine what it would be like to try to speak out in defence of life in a country like China, or in any of the impoverished nations targeted by the international de-population movement, we will be grateful indeed that we are still free to mark an ‘X' on a ballot, and we'll be determined to use that right in whatever way we can to restore justice in our country.

The Trials of Trying Kevorkian

On hearing that U.S. suicide champion Jack Kevorkian is to be tried again for "helping" someone to commit suicide, we were tempted to say, "Put us out of our misery! Convict the man already!"

So far, no jury has been willing to hold the de-licensed "Dr. Death" responsible for even one of the scores of deaths he has presided over in his macabre career. (The body count, according to Kevorkian himself, is now over 120.)

Most commentators speculated that this time it might be different, since Kevorkian directly killed his latest victim (instead of rigging up a button for his victim to press, in order to die with "dignity") - and this time, the good doctor did his grandstanding on national TV (on 60 Minutes, if you please).

We hope they're right; but why should it be any differnt, just because Kevorkian himself pulled the trigger this time? According to the illogic which has spared Kevorkian thus far, if "helping" someone to kill himself is compassionate, doing the deed entirely for that person would seem to be nobler still.

We're reminded of another successful practitioner of high-profile civil disobedience - Canada's abortion kingpin, Henry Morgentaler. We can only pray that the jurors in Kevorkian's latest case won't be so naive. Right now, assisted suicide is illegal in Michigan. Soon, if Kevorkian isn't stopped decisively, objecting to assisted suicide will be.