The Citizen, 1993-02-24, Page 4Not a bah-d view
Letters
THE EDITOR,
On Dec. 18, 1992 the task force
of abortion service providers
presented its final report to the
Minister of Health Frances Lankin.
The minister has promised to
implement all of the
recommendations.
The board of Wingham Voice for
Life Association has reviewed this
report and finds it necessary to
strongly oppose and condemn its
existence.
We ask you, the citizens of
Ontario, to join us in denouncing
this miscarriage of justice. The
report was prepared and presented
by an 11 member task force all of
whom are abortion service
providers. It is therefore not
surprising that the recommenda-
tions request the expansion of
abortion services. Some of these
recommendations include flagrant
violations of our civil and
democratic rights. It is stated that
all hospitals offering obstetrics
must include abortion facilities. It
also states that the College of
Physicians and Surgeons must
issue a statement to remind
physicians that regardless of their
personal views they have to make
abortion referrals. There is also a
demand for a province wide
injunction barring pro-life protest.
Section 2 of the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms clearly states that
Canadians have a right to the
fundamental freedoms of thought,
belief, opinion and expression
including freedom of press and
other media of communication and
the right to freedom of peaceful
assembly. These rights are being
ignored by the task force.
It seems ridiculous that in this
time of health care cutbacks our
government would consider
increasing funding of abortion
services. This certainly cannot be
the most pressing issue facing our
population today. In regards to
banning peaceful protest, it will be
a sad day if we are no longer able
to show our disagreement with
government policy. Nobody needs
to protect anyone from Pro-lifers
anywhere in Canada. I do not want
to give up my right to protest, do
you?
Please inform your local M.P.P.
as well as the Minister of Health
and Premier Bob Rae. Do not be
the silent majority any longer!
Nancy McKeon, President
Wingham Voice for Life.
THE EDITOR,
I wish to convey to your readers
a letter I wrote to our Minister of
Health, Frances Lankin regarding
radical recommendations from the
Pro-Abortion Task Group of
Abortion Service Providers.
Francs, you must not be paying
attention! Usually our government
Photo by Lisa Boonstoppel-Pot
does a much better job of
"masking" questionable legislation
that inflicts on the charter of rights.
How can you establish a task
force to productively and
objectively research the abortion
crisis in Ontario when all of the
group are abortion service
providers? One member even owns
and operates an abortion mill in
Toronto. This member would have
nothing to gain if abortion were
expanded, right? Where is the
debate process?
The demand to make hospitals
provide abortions and to establish
abortion clinics in every
community is outrageous. I'm not
giving one more dime to support
government and their antics. Our
health care system is presently
experiencing poor financial
managing and cutbacks. As in the
past, this task group is only going
to add to the Health Care problem
and over taxation.
The task group's dem-ands
regarding the banning of prolife
protest is a clear violation of my
civil right.
Furthermore, the demand that the
Ministry of Health bypass "needs
assessment" studies for local
districts would deny the public's
input on Health Care.
The Ministry of Health is
showing total disregard for the
democratic right to freedom of
assembly, speech and expression.
Frances, have you heard of
communism?
How is the "Government of the
Continued on page 6
VERIFIED
CIRCULATION
PAID
PAGE 4. THE CITIZEN, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24,1993.
It's a messy system
The Paul Bernardo case that has been hogging the headlines for the
past week illustrates again that democracy is not a neat system of
government. Far from meshing together, the various gears that make up
our way of life often tend to grind against each other.
How does the right of an accused to be presumed innocent until
proven guilty, mesh with the need of police to announce they have
arrested a suspect? How does the public's right to know, and the
media's right to tell the public, work when the police are trying to build
a case? And how does the right of the accused to a fair trial work when
there is so much publicity about the arrest?
The most obvious clash at present is between the media and the
police, with the police angrily accusing the reporters of jeopardizing
their case with all the publicity. The huge number of newspapers, radio
and television stations covering this high-profile case does make it a
media circus in which some members do not help the image of their
profession. Still, the reporters are only providing the information that
the public wants. Only those who have ignored the stories in the
newspapers or on newscasts should sneer too much at the activities of
the media.
There's the fact too that there is always a difficult relationship
between the media and police. Police are quite happy to take advantage
of the media when they want the composite drawing of a suspect
published or want the owners of Camaros to bring their cars in for a
check, but they want to control the agenda, shutting the door on the
reporters whenever they think the media has gotten too independent.
On one hand, police call press conferences to pat each other on the
back for capturing a suspect, but on the other hand they don't want to
say anything else to the media, angering reporters who start digging for
their own information.
Police are often quite willing to publicize information that
strengthens their case, even if it prejudices the ability of the accused to
have an impartial jury selected.
In this high-profile case, there are even indications that one police
force, the Metro Toronto police, can't get along with another, the
"Green Ribbon Taskforce", as they squabbled over jurisdiction.
Sadly, through all this, the justice system, and the democracy it is a
part of, are diminished. Everyone, from police to press to public who
want to gobble up details, must show a little more restraint.—KR
A precious commodity
He may be the man who accomplished the least who is missed the
most. Many people will be sad to hear that Joe Clark is leaving politics.
Mr. Clark has become one of the country's most respected
politicians, even though he has failed at most things he set out to do.
He became leader of the Progressive Conservative Party almost by
accident when the party turned against the two other candidates who
were leading the leadership convention. He became Prime Minister
when the Canadian people turned against Pierre Trudeau, but lasted
only a few months before he lost a vote on his budget and resigned,
getting whipped by Trudeau in the subsequent election. He lost a
leadership review and called a leadership convention, being beaten by
Brian Mulroney who later became Prime Minister.
After years as a relatively successful external affairs minister, he
was given the last great mission of his political life: to try to get a
constitutional agreement. He succeeded in getting the support of all
provinces and the aboriginal leadership for the Charlottetown Accord,
only to have it soundly rejected by the Canadian people.
And yet people admired him . . . not for his ideas or his
accomplishments, but for his constancy, his integrity. Through good
times and bad, he never seemed to compromise in the name of
expediency. If he had compromised his principles more, he might have
remained prime minister longer, and certainly would have held onto his
party's leadership longer.
While it's nice to see the admiration for Mr. Clark, it is a sad
statement on the current state of Canadian politics that he is so popular
because he stands out for his integrity. The country longs for people to
look up to, people of principle, yet we seem to have so few of them.
No one would certainly accuse Prime Minister Mulroney of letting
his integrity get in the way of getting ahead. He has been such a plotter
and schemer that if he said he supported motherhood, people would
wonder if he really planned to outlaw it. Liberal leader Jean Chretien
once had a reputation for integrity but since he became party leader he's
become too cagey for his own good.
It's leaders like these who make Mr. Clark look so good.—KR
C itizen
The North Huron
P.O. Box 429, P.O. Box 152,
BLYTH, Ont. BRUSSELS, Ont.
NOM 1110 NOG 1H0
Phone 523-4792 Phone 887-9114
FAX 523-9140 FAX 887-9021
The Citizen Is published weekly In Brussels, Ontario by North Huron Publishing
Company Inc.
Subscriptions are payable In advance at a rate of $20.50/year ($19.16 plus $1.34 G.S.T.)
for local; $31.03/year ($29.00 plus $2.03 G.S.T.) for local letter carrier in Goderich,
Hanover, Ustowel, etc. and out-of-area (40 miles from Brussels); $60.00/year for U.SA.
and Foreign.
Advertising is accepted on the condition that in the event of a typographical error, only
that portion of the advertisement will be credited.
Advertising Deadlines: Monday, 2 p.m. - Brussels; Monday, 4 p.m. - Blyth.
We are not responsible for unsolicited newscripts or photographs.
Contents of The Citizen are Copywright.
Publications Mail Registration No. 6968
Publisher, Keith Roulston
Editor, Bonnie Gropp
Sales Representatives,
Jeannette McNeil and Julie Mitchell
T Serving Blyth, Brussels, Auburn, Beigrave, Ethel, Londesborough, Walton and the surrounding townshi ,„