The Media

As you know, media bias is a particular pet peeve of mine.

I see bias in almost all the news I read, watch or listen too. It's aggravating. (I've blogged about it here).

However, I came across this great post on bias at the Chocolate for your Brain blog today and it summarizes my thoughts and feelings- and it does a better job then I could do. So, if you have a minute, take a look.

In Defence of Lifesite

Based on responses I've been hearing from friends, family and some strangers, I feel a need to defend Lifesite. Before I do that, I want to link to the editorial Steve Jalsevac and John-Henry Westen, the managing director and editor-in-chief of Lifesite respectively, published yesterday on the D&P saga. You can read it here.

I don't blame them for publishing the editorial, and I think they do a good job of reiterating their position. I have to compliment them on their reasonableness and charity in their frank discussion of the events of the past 10 days. (I know if it was me, I'd be hard pressed to not be snarky and sarcastic.)

I think the line that made me saddest and proudest of Lifesite is this one from the very bottom of the article "The Development and Peace response has caused many, especially persons who are not regular readers of LSN, to question the credibility of LifeSiteNews.com. That has forced us to continue to provide additional evidence of the facts until the facts overwhelm, which we are committed to doing in the coming days."

First, I think its sad that people would rather assume Lifesite is not credible than really look into the allegations against D&P. I have been following Lifesite news for the last year and I find them to be an invaluable resource in learning about what is going on in the world because the mainstream media rarely delves deeply into life issues. Every time I have done external research to their reports, I have found their reports to be accurate and credible. In some cases, I find that they have actually pulled punches that I would have landed much harder. (Again, its that charity thing I struggle with :) They do good work, and for anyone who isn't familiar with their work, stay with them.

Second, I am proud of them. It is when people are tested that we see their true colors come out. I can imagine that the feedback they are receiving right now is not always pleasant. And yet, they have not stooped to the level of ad hominum attacks or lashed out with angry, hurtful comments. Instead, they've made a commitment to investigate this issue until "the facts overwhelm." That's true journalism. They want you to be convinced, because of the facts, not because they say it.

In many ways its the opposite of what D&P has been doing. D&P tells you their position, but gives no explanation for it. Lifesite on the other hand cites and backs up all the statements they make. Who is the most believable? I think you all know my position.

I'm also waiting with great interest to see what they have to say about further allegations against D&P partners. I don't think this story is over, not by a long shot.

Please pray for everyone involved in this process- D&P, Lifesite, D&P's partners, the bishops, the laity who contribute, and watch and wait. The truth will come out. I can only hope we will all act on that truth.

Fighting for the Church

I don’t often take the time to actually write letters to the editor or reply to columnists, but an article I read in yesterday’s Edmonton Sun annoyed me so much I felt compelled to respond. (Read the article here)The article was titled “Vatican Lives in a Vacuum” and essentially went after the Church because of its response to the excommunication of the parents and doctor of a 9 year old girl in Brazil. The girl was pregnant with twins (the stepfather is accused of rape) and the doctor and mother decided that abortion was the only option. For their part in the abortion, the mother and doctors were excommunicated. (Read that story here)

Here was my response to the article:

I would just like illuminate a few teachings of Catholic doctrine that Ms. Jacob's column "Vatican lives in a Vacuum" misunderstood. The archbishop speaking out did not excommunicate the mother and the doctors; they were automatically excommunicated as soon as they made the decision to force the child to have an abortion because such action is considered a mortal sin by the Church. Anyone involved in procuring an abortion is immediately excommunicated, whether they are informed so by their bishop or not. While the statement didn't specifically mention the step-father, you can be assured that if he is guilty of rape, he has also been excommunicated for the same reasons.

The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is always wrong. They do that because they believe that the unborn fetus is a human being, and to abort the child is murder. Church law does not change on a case by case basis; it is law because it applies in every case. While this is an incredibly tragic case, the abortion simply compounds the crime of rape. If you read the doctor's reports further, they conclude that a vaginal birth could have killed the girl, not the pregnancy itself. That means the children could have been safely brought to term, and a C section performed. This choice would have saved all 3 lives, instead of killing 2. Not only that, there are potential long term complications from the abortion itself, which could include infertility later in life if the girl wants to have a family.

And finally, the tongue in cheek statement "you naughty Catholics shouldn't have sex unless you are planning to procreate" is actually true. Pregnancy is the natural end result of sex; why else do you think people spend thousands every year to try to avoid it with birth control that is never 100% effective. If you have sex, there is a possibility that you will get pregnant. The condom, even if used properly, is only 99% effective. That means 1 in 100 couples who have sex and use the condom correctly will end up pregnant. If you are not prepared to have a child, you should not be having sex; it's not that difficult to understand.

When writing a column on a statement made by the Catholic Church, please do a little bit of research first so you understand where the church is coming from rather than demonizing it because you disagree. The teachings of the church come from a large body of research spanning 2000 years and are based in theology, philosophy and science, and the church articulates reasons for every doctrine it has. If you'd like to know more, please don't hesitate to ask.

Yours,
Sarah

If the article upsets you as well, please send a letter to the editor to mailbag@edmsun.com or reply directly to the columnist at mindy.jacobs@sunmedia.ca. Please keep in mind that they only publish letters that are 100 words or less.

I really wish people would stop condemning the Church based on what they believe her to be saying, not what she actually teaches. It’s frustrating. And, when dealing with abortion, we need to keep in mind that the real issue is what are the unborn. This columnist (and many others) don’t believe the unborn children to be human. They are very concerned about the health and welfare of the child who was raped, and I commend them for it, but what about the health and welfare of the children she was carrying? If they are all human, how can the unborn be any less worthy of life?

Media Bias Hits Home

Apparently the media cheerleading for the left has hit campus newspapers as well. On Monday, the pro-life group at my university hosted a Silent No More Awareness Campaign. The group invited the campus paper, The Sheaf, to cover the story, which they did. You can read their article here.

*** IMPORTANT NOTE FROM BLOG AUTHOR: Before I go any further, I suppose I should make it clear that I am a member of the campus pro-life group, but I will do my best to give fair, unbiased coverage about the facts. Also note that this post is going to be something of a rant because I am seriously annoyed. My apologies in advance. ***

(See, at least I'm honest about my bias upfront. The rest of the media could learn something from that.)

Despite giving half a page to the story, the coverage of the actual presentation is one sentence. "They [Silent No More] have a group of women who have had abortions tell their stories and explain why they regret that decision." So, here is my (relatively) unbiased news coverage of the event.

On January 26, 2009 the U of S Students for Life (USSL) hosted a group called Silent No More on campus. This group spent the day with a table set up in the Arts Tunnel. The display featured large signs which read "I regret my abortion." A group of 6 women from Silent No More presented their personal story and experience of abortion at 12pm and 4pm that day in a classroom in the Arts building. These testimonies included the women giving the reason they had their abortion, the physical, mental and spiritual harm they suffered as a result of that abortion. Before the women began giving their testimony, the spokeswoman for the group outlined the history of Silent No More and its chief goals and aims; the most important being that women who suffer from Post Abortion Syndrome can find help. At the end of the presentation, the spokeswoman offered the names and contact information for groups that help women to heal from abortion. Several of the women who gave their story testified to the help they found at a retreat known as Rachel's Vineyard. Attendance at the 12pm presentation was approximately 12 individuals. At 4pm, upwards of 40 individuals filled the classroom to hear the presentation.

There, is it so hard to give an unbiased version of events? When you are putting the story on page 2, in the news section, I would expect it to be a news story, not an editorial. Of course papers are free to editorialize; in fact the editorial pages of newspapers tend to be my favorite pages, but you need to make it clear to others when you are editorializing and when you are setting out the facts of an event that happened.

*** IMPORTANT NOTE FROM BLOG AUTHOR: I will now begin to editorialize and do not claim to be unbiased in the following paragraphs ***

The rest of the Sheaf's article rehashes a story they ran a few weeks ago, and not surprisingly gets the facts wrong. For example they state that those who attended the noon presentation were either pro-choice women from the Women's Centre or "directly involved with Silent No More or related to the presenters." I was at the noon presentation, and my recollection is that there were 2 people from the USSL, 2 women not involved with Silent No More or the USSL, the daughter of one presenter, the 4 women from the Women's Centre, 2 people from the Sheaf and 3 other people I did not know, plus the 6 women involved in the presentation.

But, more to the point, why does who attended matter? And, if counting attendees was so important to the story, why did they not come back to the 4pm presentation; the one that occurred after classes were over for the day, and note that over 40 people attended, none of whom were involved in the presentation or related to those giving the presentation? Oh, I know, because that would take away from the spin they are trying to subtly put on the article.

They also manage to work in the fact that Silent No More is affiliated with Anglicans for Life. What purpose is served by noting that? I'm surprised actually that they didn't note that it is also affiliated with Priests for Life, which is, at least in the politically correct world a far more damning connection. Who cares who they are affiliated with unless you are trying to connect them with that radical and dangerous group known as Christians- After all, as everyone knows, all pro-lifers are motivated by religious ideals and couldn't possibly be speaking from a scientific or intellectual perspective.

And, the "fact" that annoys me most is the assertion that the USSL failed to attend a meeting set up on December 5. That makes the USSL look like they have something to hide now doesn't it. I agree it would merit publication, except for the fact that it isn't true. No meeting was set up for December 5 that the USSL had any knowledge of (and I have the e-mails to prove that statement if anyone cares to read them). While I may not be a lawyer yet, I did study the tort of libel in first year law. The Sheaf is getting awfully close with some of the stuff they are publishing. (I keep decrying the lack of practical hands on experience in law school; maybe I should take this on…)

I also find it interesting that a formal harassment complaint has been made against the USSL. Again, to my knowledge no one has made a formal complaint; in fact, just yesterday I was told on the record that no formal process had yet begun. Again, getting very close to libel.

My point in this rant, which may have escaped you due to it's length, is that once again the "free press" has proven itself to be neither unbiased nor too concerned with actually reporting the news. Spinning things to go your way is much more fun apparently. At least other papers have the excuse (such as it is) that they are trying to sell papers, and sensationalization sells. The Sheaf has no such excuse- all U of S students pay a fee that goes directly to The Sheaf, and the paper is freely distributed on campus. That's right- I'm paying to have this publication publish facts that they spin and outright lie about. Doesn't that just take the cake.

(I will likely be blogging more on this topic as it develops. Comment if you don't want to hear more, otherwise you will hear more.)

Of Left and of Right

It struck me today as I was reading through my various news sources that we have become a world that politicizes everything. Maybe this is just the way the world has always been, but today is the first day that I really thought about it. What I mean is, we take every story and idea and look at it and report on it through the lens of politics, the lens of left and right, rather than just looking at the facts and coming to our own conclusions about what those facts mean.

For example, let's look at global warming, or climate change, as we are to call it now. Our governments spend billions on attempting to reduce CO2 emissions with the hope that it will somehow stop global warming. However if anyone stops to ask if we can actually link CO2 emissions to rising temperatures, or, heaven forbid if global warming is even happening, people jump down their throat quicker than you can say "Ice Age." Invariably such people, regardless of their credentials are attacked for being right wing whackos in the pocket of mega-corporations. The same things happen when a scientist publishes or tries to publish any research that might deny the climate change theory. Why? Because people stand to make money off of the global warming fear mongering.

Another example is the ongoing embryonic stem cell debate. Some scientists claim that embryonic stem cells and embryonic stem cells alone are the only way to find a cure for things like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. And yet, in the decade or so that we've been working with stem cells, embryonic ones have given humanity exactly 0 treatments or potential treatments, while adult and cord stem cells have helped in the creation of numerous therapies; including the potential to regrow teeth. A recent report says that scientists have concluded that embryonic stem cells are of no use in fighting Alzheimer's, but that report is not making it out into the public sphere. Why? Because the embryonic stem cell community likes the advocacy and public opinion that goes with having Nancy Regan as a spokeswomen. That kind of advocacy draws in funding dollars. So what if it won't ever cure Alzheimer's, people will donate money that will help find other cures.

Recent press releases by the Vatican have been the victim of this politicization as well. Take Pope Benedict's 2008 year end address where he was accused of being homophobic and stroking the fires of homophobia. The actual text of his words received very little airtime; the reporting was on the shock, outrage and betrayal that the homosexual community felt as a result of his remarks. People spoke of the church needing to get with the times.

Take the current love-fest with the upcoming Obama inauguration. From the hype everyone is making about it, you'd think the Savior was returning. From the media coverage, I almost expect Obama to heal the sick and give sight to the blind. It's as though the man is singlehandedly going to fix every single problem the world has- and he's going to do it all on the day he's inaugurated.

I could go on with examples, but I think this is sufficient to make my point. Take any current event, and look at the coverage of that event by various new sources. I guarantee that you will find some form of spin in it; spin designed with the purpose of politicizing events so that, I think, we all take sides against each other. The media has a big role to play in this. They no longer report the news; they report opinion and slant the facts to fit their editorial bent. I have no problem with that, done in the context of the Opinion pages of the newspaper; we know that what is published there is not passing itself off on news, but when it's done (as it is regularly) in the news section, the media does us all a disservice. Why does everything have to be filtered and placed along the left/right spectrum? With a few rare exceptions, the media is left wing. Their coverage of everything is slanted to the left. Humans are smart; we are more than capable of reading something and drawing our own conclusions. And yet the media insists on making everything on the left sound like its heaven sent and everything on the right is going to destroy the world?

Before I go much further, I want to recognize that some in the right are just as guilty as some in the left, myself included. As soon as I hear a report that says the polar ice caps are melting and sea levels are rising, or that embryonic stem cells are the miracle cure for all our ailments, or that the pope has revealed himself to be a homophobe, or that Obama is going to raise the US back to the level of respect it had pre-Bush, or anything along those lines, my immediate thought is to dismiss it as "lefty crap." It's as though the first thing I do when reading something is identify the author's particular slant, decide the article is left wing crap, or God's honest truth and then I read the article, with those biases firmly in place.

Even as I write this, a part of me (the non-law side) wants to just say it must be lefty crap and leave it at that. Yet, after almost 3 years in law, I find I can't just do that, much as I might like to. The common law model of law (which Canada, the US, Britain, Australia and some other countries use) is an adversarial model. We are taught that each side will advocate for its own position as zealously as possible, and the trier of fact (either the jury or the judge) will look at the evidence on both sides and come to a conclusion about what really happened; what the truth is. Justice is supposed to be blind (trust me, it's not) but that is the ideal that we want to live up to.

However, I don't believe anyone can ever fully put their biases aside when making decisions. Anyone who tells you they can is lying, naïve or a lefty. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but it does mean that we have to recognize our biases, and we should candidly admit to them, so that our audience knows where we are coming from. I really realized this when listening to my little sister (she's 13) talk about politics the other night. She spoke eloquently about her political beliefs, but she couldn't defend them. She had no arguments to back them up. And I think that's partially my fault. I spend a lot of time talking about how the left is destroying this country, but I don't give her the background. She loves and trusts me, and as a result, my political beliefs have become her political beliefs, without her really understanding what they mean. I think the same thing happened to me as a child; my dad talked politics, and I love and trust him, so I adopted what he said. It wasn't until I came to university and I really had to defend them that I learned what they meant; what the values behind them actually stand for. I think that is just a part of growing up; just like an infant learning to talk- we learn by repeating what we hear, and over time we come to understand what we have been repeating, and then we either accept it, or we don't.

In some ways I think the media is still the child parroting back what it has heard at home. Until you are secure in, and understand the reasons for, your beliefs, you can't step up and say, "I am a social conservative, a Catholic and an advocate of small government; what most people would term right wing" (fill in your own political persuasions here) and I believe x because…" For a real discussion or dialogue to occur, you have to be able to identify yourself in terms that the rest of the world can relate to. Those terms may not be as precise as you would like, but they give others a frame of reference to understand your point of view. The media is still a child because they can't, or won't do this yet. They still claim to be unbiased when they are really a cheerleading squad for their beliefs. And until they grow up, we will be stuck with this left wing/right wing lens being placed on all events they cover.

I guess what I'm saying is question everything anyone says; break it down; identify biases (including your own) and then come to your own conclusion and be prepared to back them up. If you know why you believe what you do, no one can beat you in a debate. They will be reduced to name calling to try to make your point go away, because you are secure in who you are, and they don't know what to do with that.

“We don’t know a millionth of one percent about anything”

When I was still a naïve young child/teenager, I loved quotes. I searched out all the quotes I could find that I liked, and I (with my limited artistic ability) wrote them up very nicely and put a design around them, and then posted them in my bedroom where I could read and think about them all the time. There were all kinds of quotes up there; some from science fiction sources, philosophers, politicians, from the classical world- they came from all over the place.

As a result of several discussions I've had today, I was reflecting on what I know and how that shapes my worldview and my understanding of it and that made me recall a quote on my wall from Thomas Edison- it's the title of my post, and it reads "We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything." I remember when I found this quote, I was blown away. I wasn't at the point yet where I wondered about context, and I never asked, like I was tempted to do today "well, what was Edison speaking about?" That's the legal side of my mind that wants to put everything in a little box. When I first found the quote, I just took it at face value; Edison meant exactly what he said- we don't know a millionth of one percent about anything. I've resisted the urge to look up the context and too keep my understanding to the child-like understanding of my youth and ignore the legal side of me that wants to delve deeper and deeper into it until it reaches the point where it means nothing.

We live in a world that is on the go 24/7. I read several newspapers (online), about twenty different blogs, have created a private news listing from an online service, follow two online forums and I am on three different news services mailing lists. Plus, I like to watch the news, and just randomly see what stories I can come across while surfing the net. And I do this daily. When I look at this, I think it's probably a little bit (if not a lot) over the top. But I don't know how to stop- I read so many sources because I don't trust the media, and I want to see things from every possible perspective so that I can piece together the "facts" given by the left and the right wing and hopefully come out to the truth somewhere in the middle. The only time I don't do this is when I go back to my parents (mostly because they only have dial-up and I can't handle waiting). Obviously, I don't need to follow all of this, because I don't miss it while I'm at home.

So, why do I do this? What drives me to spend about two hours a day reading news? Two things and they are really related. First, I want to be informed; I want to know what is going on in the world on a regular basis, especially around pro-life issues. If I am going to be a voice for the voiceless, I need to know when and where the weak are oppressed, and honestly, the mainstream media does a lousy job of telling the rest of us about what is going on; that necessitates reading a large number of varied sources to pick it all up. The second reason is I need to be informed is so I can give good rebuttals in my debates on issues that matter to me. After all, if there is one thing the left likes to do, it is to make analogies. You have to know what the analogies are to rebut them.

I also like to post on this blog about pro-life legal issues going on in the world, but to be honest, at best I post 1 a day. In reading all the reading I do, there are probably 6-7 different pro-life related stories every day. So, in my roundabout way, the purpose of this post is to encourage you to go to www.lifesitenews.com to stay updated on what's going on regarding life issues. (One of the services I subscribe to is an e-mail digest from Lifesite news).

While there is a lot to do every day, staying informed and educating yourself is important. So, with whatever spare time you do have, I encourage you to stay updated on the news, and talk to your friends and family about it. That's one way to keep the prolife message in the forefront of people's minds.

But, at the end of the day, just remember Thomas Edison: "we don't know a millionth of one percent about anything."

Further Movements on the Pro-Death Front

A few weeks ago, I wrote the Call to Arms post about euthanasia and assisted suicide (EAS), and I pointed out that the pro-death advocates are doing everything they can to make EAS legal in Canada. They are a slick, sophisticated machine, and the next part of their plan is marching on smoothly. They are either manipulating, or have taken over the media, and are using the media to show EAS in a positive light. Case in point is the coverage of an upcoming criminal trial in Quebec.

Stephane Dufour's trial begins tomorrow in Quebec. He is charged under s .241 of the Criminal Code with helping his uncle to commit suicide- by hanging. That's right, the charge is assisted suicide, and he assisted in the hanging. His uncle was unable to kill himself, so dear sweet nephew Stephane helped him to hang himself. The media coverage is turning this into a debate about whether EAS should be legal in Canada, but the legal question to be answered at trial is if Mr. Dufour assisted in the suicide or not- there is no great public policy question to be answered here- it was answered in R. v. Rodriguez when the Supreme Court found that s. 241 is constitutional. But that doesn't matter to the media. They are reporting that this case is all about the "right to die".

Yahoo's poll of the day today was "Should Canada legalize assisted suicide" and when I voted, it was 59% yes, 41% no. While the poll is not scientific, it does show that we have a lot of work to do. The pro-death movement, assisted by the media has made great strides in changing public opinion by relabeling the terms of the debate.

Read the Lifesite News version of the story here.

Read the Canadian Press version here.

Note the way each group uses language to make their point.

And be very, very worried about the mainstream media's coverage of the issue. In the Call to Arms post I encouraged everyone to contact their MP's about their feelings on EAS. I forgot to mention the HUGE role that the media plays in presenting and covering the issue. So, the task now, if we are to win in the court of public opinion (which of course the politicians listen to) is to make sure the media presents both sides of the story. The way to do that is by writing to your papers, TV stations and news websites. Give them feedback- let them know what you think about both the issue and their coverage of it. If a columnist writes a piece you disagree with, respond- e-mail addresses can invariably be found at the bottom of the column. If it is an online piece, leave a comment in the comment section. It doesn't take much time, and you might not think it will do anything, but it does. It lets the media know what its readers/viewers are thinking.

The time for passivity is gone. We need to speak now, before it is too late. Read and watch the news attentively, and whenever life issues come up, address them- discuss the news at work or school or with friends the next day, and, for the sake of LIFE, let the media outlet know how you feel. Our power comes from our voice, so let's use it!

Interesting Documentary

Really short post tonight/this morning because I just finished my paper.

This video has been posted around the blogsphere today, but it is well worth watching- it's the results of a poll done immediately after people voted in the American Election, and is attempting to show the media bias in the coverage of leading up to the election. After doing the interviews, the author also commissioned a study to see if the results would be duplicated in a more scientific process.

Results of the poll are at www.howobamagotelected.com. Check it out; it's very interesting, and I can't wait to see the final documentary.

A Call to Arms

In recent days I've blogged a lot about euthanasia and assisted suicide (EAS) - specifically the Washington I-1000 Initiative, and the troubling response of my legal classmates to the issue. It's also the part of the issue I'm writing my paper on, so it's something I've been doing a lot of thinking and reading about.

And I've come to the realization that we, as Catholics and as pro-lifers need to get our act together on this issue. I've spoken to pro-lifers who think that dealing with abortion is more immediate because 2000 babies are dying every week from abortion in Canada (and 3000 in the US) and a million every week worldwide, and that is a genocide. We are losing millions of children to this and we have to fight with every fiber of our being against it. However, the forces of the culture of death have begun to marshal around the issue of EAS, and we also have to do something about that.

In some ways, we are in a better position to prevent EAS than we are to prevent abortions right now, and we need to keep it that way. Currently, those of us fighting against EAS are in the same position pro-lifers were in before Roe v. Wade (US) and before R v. Morgantaler (Canada). Right now, the law in Canada doesn't allow for either euthanasia or assisted suicide. Euthanasia is prosecutable as murder, and assisted suicide has its own charge in s. 241 of the Criminal Code. We need to keep it that way! But the only way for us to do that is to be vocal about it. We need to speak about the issue, and we need to create strong arguments against it. Because, as abortion has shown us, once it's legal it's really hard to change the law, and trying to put in "protections" haven't been all that successful.

Right now, we are in a position to launch an offensive battle against EAS. If we don't launch it, we will end up playing a catch-up, reactive, defensive action against the forces of death, just like we are with abortion. So, you ask, how do we fight this battle?

The battle is going to be won in the halls of Parliament, the courtrooms of our nation and in the media. That's where we need to fight this.

In 2004, Bloc Quebecois MP Francine Lalonde introduced a private members bill that would allow EAS. This bill was defeated, not by a vote in Parliament, but by the 2006 election being called. Again in 2006, she introduced another EAS bill. It again was only defeated by dying on the order paper when the 2008 election was called. You can read the 2004 bill here and the 2006 bill here. We don't know how Parliament will vote on this issue. However, she has said that she will reintroduce the same bill in the current Parliament at her earliest opportunity. There is now a group in BC, in the wake of the Washington decision, pushing for EAS to be legalized in Canada.

If they go the legislative route, the only people who can stop EAS are the MP's. I encourage everyone to contact their MP frequently about this issue, and all life issues. Whenever you hear a story in the news, forward it to them, with your opinions about it. MP's represent YOU and have a duty to do what the majority of their constituents want. The only way they know what their constituents want is if they hear from them, so please contact your MP. You can find your MP's name and contact information here.

If this battle is fought in the courts- and there is a good chance that it will be, because I think Parliament will be afraid to deal with this issue because it's a political hot potato (just like the same-sex marriage issue) it will be a long expensive battle. The only way to help the fight here is to make sure the organizations that fight this with intervener status, like the Council of Canadians with Disabilities and the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition have the funding to do it. (Intervener status means they have a right to make submissions before the court deciding the issue.)

The final, and perhaps most important battleground is the media, because it is the media that Parliament and the courts will look to when making "public policy" decisions, which is what these are. They are looking for consensus among Canadians about what they want. We need to fight this battle against death in the forefront of public opinion. We need to challenge the terms that the pro-death crowd uses- terms like "dying with dignity" and "unbearable pain and suffering." A public battle is fought and won by gaining the hearts and minds of the population. The population is very busy and likes catchy phrases that sound good that they can repeat without really learning anything about it. We need to challenge the meaning of those terms- ask them to be defined. We need to redefine them for our benefit. If you want a good example of where this has been done before- look at the pro-choice movement. Pro-lifer's have science on their side, but the pro-choicers won because they had the language. We need to make sure that the terms the media uses are terms we want them using. That can only be done by having a public dialogue on the issue.

Consider this a call to arms.

Rally the troops.

Get ready to fight, because this is going to be a long hard fight.

Those of you who are prayer warriors; start praying.

And let's win this battle without losing the legalization fight. We can if we start fighting now.

We don't need compromise and appeasement, we need to save lives.