| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
 T.G.
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 Total posts: 3188 Location: Ontario Gender: Male
|
 Posted: 07/ 03/ 08 9:05 pm Post subject: Formal Request Filed to Terminate Morgentaler's Order |
 |
|
http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/life/order-of-canada.htm
Ms. Emmanuelle Sajous
The Governor General of Canada
Attention: The Chancellery of Honours
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A1
Phone: (613) 993-8200
July 3, 2008
Dear Ms. Sajous:
On behalf of the 41,000 members of Canada Family Action Coalition and many hundreds of thousands of like-minded Canadians we hereby request that the Advisory Council recommend that the Governor General terminate Henry Morgantaler's appointment to the Order of Canada.
In accordance with the Paragraph 25(c) of the Constitution of the Order of Canada we hereby request that the Governor General make an Ordinance terminating this person's appointment to the Order. Under section: Policy and Procedure for Termination of Appointment to the Order of Canada, paragraph 3. (b) The Advisory Council shall consider the termination of a person's appointment to the Order of Canada if (b) the conduct of the person (i) constitutes a significant departure from generally-recognized standards of public behaviour which is seen to undermine the credibility, integrity or relevance of the Order, or detracts from the original grounds upon which the appointment was based; or (ii) has been subject to official sanction, such as a fine or a reprimand, by an adjudicating body, professional association or other organization.
Henry Morgantaler's conduct is unbecoming that of a Member of the Order of Canada and thereby tarnishes all recipients of this tremendous award.
For nineteen years, 1969 to 1988, Dr. Morgantaler's admittedly violated Canadian law. His conduct constituted a significant departure from generally recognized standards of public behaviour. According to numerous media reports in print, television and radio his appointment undermines the credibility, integrity and relevance of the Order.
In addition 1976, Dr. Morgantaler was sanctioned by the Disciplinary Committee of the Professional Corporation of Physicians of Quebec that suspended his medical license for one year. He was found guilty of "not holding a valid interview before an abortion, for failing almost completely to gather a case history of his client, for failing to perform the necessary pregnancy test or blood test, for not obtaining pathological examination of the 'tissues' removed and for failing to follow up the state of health of his patients afterward."
Also according to reports it appears that the Advisory Committee violated long standing protocol requiring unanimous consent approving a nominee by resorting to a mere majority vote. With such manipulation of the system we question if the Chair's well known "unwritten constitutional principles" subverted accepted procedure.
In an effort to protect the integrity of the hundreds of recipients of Canada's highest award we therefore respectfully ask the Governor General to terminate the appointment of Henry Morgantaler's appointment to the Order of Canada.
Sincerely yours,
Brian Rushfeldt, Executive Director |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sponsor
|
Use PayPal to make regular monthly $20 donations to the free speech cause - quit any time! Or make a one time donation!
|
 |
| kowalski Joined: 15 May 2004 Total posts: 2978 Location: Seeking a safe seat. Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 07/ 04/ 08 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Morgantaler Schmorgantaler. It is not so important unless you are paying attention or selling newspapers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WestViking
|
| Posted: 07/ 04/ 08 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kowalski wrote: | | Morgantaler Schmorgantaler. It is not so important unless you are paying attention or selling newspapers. |
Morgentaler is in a serious conflict of interest on the abortion issue; it is a mainstay of his income. His six profitable abortion clinics are his monument to his 'sacrifice' for women.
Morgentaler and two associated were convicted of providing illegal abortions. They lost appeals in lower courts. They were in the Supreme Court to save their sorry asses, not to liberate women.
The appeal revealed three things wrong with the abortion laws of the time: a) the requirement for all 'therapeutic' abortions to be certified and approved by an abortion committee comprised primarily of doctors meant that only large hospitals in metropolitan areas had abortion committees and most of those committees did not favour abortion. Women living in smaller centers or rural areas did not have access to the major hospitals and their abortion committees.
b) the abortion committees were, like most public service committees, dreadfully slow and women routinely waited for eight weeks or more for a committee decision. That placed both mother and unborn child at needless risk, and caused unnecessary mental anguish for the mother.
c) the abortion committees worked in secret and did not allow representations from the pregnant woman. Hence, life changing decisions were made for a woman without her participation or permission. My point is that the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code were bad law. Any appeal to the SCC would have resulted in the same decision; Morgentaler was not and is no hero – he was an appetent in a case before the Supreme Court that happened to carry his name. The case could as easily have been cited as the Smoling or Scott case as they were co-appellants.
SCC Chief Justice Dickson, writing for the majority, noted: "I wish to reiterate that finding a violation of security of the person does not end the s. 7 inquiry. Parliament could choose to infringe security of the person if it did so in a manner consistent with the principles of fundamental justice. The present discussion should therefore be seen as a threshold inquiry and the conclusions do not dispose definitively of all the issues relevant to s. 7.” Parliament has the authority to enact abortion legislation that allows women equal access to a timely abortion procedure that takes into account their presentation of circumstance and situation. Mandatory counseling on risks and alternatives would not be unreasonable.
Our spineless legislators have left us without an abortion law for over 20 years. The result is that some women are claiming a ‘right’ to unfettered abortions at public cost. There is a huge difference between a legal right and an infringement on the charter right to security of the person. The charter right is not absolute and may be infringed on under certain circumstances; protection of an unborn child is certainly one such circumstance.
In my view, an Order of Canada committee at least as dysfunctional (and secretive) as the abortion committees of two decades ago has awarded a distinguished Canadian designation to a blatant opportunist who is profiting from the dereliction of our legislators. Morgentaler does not believe in providing women faced with a very difficult decision that can have long-term physical and psychological ramification any form of council. As a result, I question his motives as well as his medical ethics. It seems we have honoured a human variety of leech.
_________________
Hall Monitor of the Shadowy GroupTM
The most effective way to stifle democracy is to transfer decision-making from the public arena to unaccountable institutions: activist judges, human rights tribunals, parliamentary committees, civil service bureaucrats and political party hacks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
virgey
Joined: 10 Jul 2004 Total posts: 4699 Location: Windsor, Ontario Age: 63 Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 07/ 04/ 08 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| WestViking wrote: | | kowalski wrote: | | Morgantaler Schmorgantaler. It is not so important unless you are paying attention or selling newspapers. |
Morgentaler is in a serious conflict of interest on the abortion issue; it is a mainstay of his income. His six profitable abortion clinics are his monument to his 'sacrifice' for women.
Morgentaler and two associated were convicted of providing illegal abortions. They lost appeals in lower courts. They were in the Supreme Court to save their sorry asses, not to liberate women.
The appeal revealed three things wrong with the abortion laws of the time: a) the requirement for all 'therapeutic' abortions to be certified and approved by an abortion committee comprised primarily of doctors meant that only large hospitals in metropolitan areas had abortion committees and most of those committees did not favour abortion. Women living in smaller centers or rural areas did not have access to the major hospitals and their abortion committees.
b) the abortion committees were, like most public service committees, dreadfully slow and women routinely waited for eight weeks or more for a committee decision. That placed both mother and unborn child at needless risk, and caused unnecessary mental anguish for the mother.
c) the abortion committees worked in secret and did not allow representations from the pregnant woman. Hence, life changing decisions were made for a woman without her participation or permission. My point is that the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code were bad law. Any appeal to the SCC would have resulted in the same decision; Morgentaler was not and is no hero – he was an appetent in a case before the Supreme Court that happened to carry his name. The case could as easily have been cited as the Smoling or Scott case as they were co-appellants.
SCC Chief Justice Dickson, writing for the majority, noted: "I wish to reiterate that finding a violation of security of the person does not end the s. 7 inquiry. Parliament could choose to infringe security of the person if it did so in a manner consistent with the principles of fundamental justice. The present discussion should therefore be seen as a threshold inquiry and the conclusions do not dispose definitively of all the issues relevant to s. 7.” Parliament has the authority to enact abortion legislation that allows women equal access to a timely abortion procedure that takes into account their presentation of circumstance and situation. Mandatory counseling on risks and alternatives would not be unreasonable.
Our spineless legislators have left us without an abortion law for over 20 years. The result is that some women are claiming a ‘right’ to unfettered abortions at public cost. There is a huge difference between a legal right and an infringement on the charter right to security of the person. The charter right is not absolute and may be infringed on under certain circumstances; protection of an unborn child is certainly one such circumstance.
In my view, an Order of Canada committee at least as dysfunctional (and secretive) as the abortion committees of two decades ago has awarded a distinguished Canadian designation to a blatant opportunist who is profiting from the dereliction of our legislators. Morgentaler does not believe in providing women faced with a very difficult decision that can have long-term physical and psychological ramification any form of council. As a result, I question his motives as well as his medical ethics. It seems we have honoured a human variety of leech. |
You explained the situation perfectly. You also clarified and educated me to some facts that I was not aware of. Also your conclusion concerning the baby killer is spot on.
_________________
Balance is what is needed in all we do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| shiva Joined: 13 Oct 2003 Total posts: 4416 Gender: Female
|
| Posted: 07/ 04/ 08 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WestViking wrote: | | kowalski wrote: | | Morgantaler Schmorgantaler. It is not so important unless you are paying attention or selling newspapers. |
Morgentaler is in a serious conflict of interest on the abortion issue; it is a mainstay of his income. His six profitable abortion clinics are his monument to his 'sacrifice' for women.
Morgentaler and two associated were convicted of providing illegal abortions. They lost appeals in lower courts. They were in the Supreme Court to save their sorry asses, not to liberate women.
The appeal revealed three things wrong with the abortion laws of the time: a) the requirement for all 'therapeutic' abortions to be certified and approved by an abortion committee comprised primarily of doctors meant that only large hospitals in metropolitan areas had abortion committees and most of those committees did not favour abortion. Women living in smaller centers or rural areas did not have access to the major hospitals and their abortion committees.
b) the abortion committees were, like most public service committees, dreadfully slow and women routinely waited for eight weeks or more for a committee decision. That placed both mother and unborn child at needless risk, and caused unnecessary mental anguish for the mother.
c) the abortion committees worked in secret and did not allow representations from the pregnant woman. Hence, life changing decisions were made for a woman without her participation or permission. My point is that the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code were bad law. Any appeal to the SCC would have resulted in the same decision; Morgentaler was not and is no hero – he was an appetent in a case before the Supreme Court that happened to carry his name. The case could as easily have been cited as the Smoling or Scott case as they were co-appellants.
SCC Chief Justice Dickson, writing for the majority, noted: "I wish to reiterate that finding a violation of security of the person does not end the s. 7 inquiry. Parliament could choose to infringe security of the person if it did so in a manner consistent with the principles of fundamental justice. The present discussion should therefore be seen as a threshold inquiry and the conclusions do not dispose definitively of all the issues relevant to s. 7.” Parliament has the authority to enact abortion legislation that allows women equal access to a timely abortion procedure that takes into account their presentation of circumstance and situation. Mandatory counseling on risks and alternatives would not be unreasonable.
Our spineless legislators have left us without an abortion law for over 20 years. The result is that some women are claiming a ‘right’ to unfettered abortions at public cost. There is a huge difference between a legal right and an infringement on the charter right to security of the person. The charter right is not absolute and may be infringed on under certain circumstances; protection of an unborn child is certainly one such circumstance.
In my view, an Order of Canada committee at least as dysfunctional (and secretive) as the abortion committees of two decades ago has awarded a distinguished Canadian designation to a blatant opportunist who is profiting from the dereliction of our legislators. Morgentaler does not believe in providing women faced with a very difficult decision that can have long-term physical and psychological ramification any form of council. As a result, I question his motives as well as his medical ethics. It seems we have honoured a human variety of leech. |
Excellent summary, as always WV. You should send this out as a letter to the editor to all newspapers across the country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Formal Request Filed to Terminate Morgentaler's Order |
|
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
