Netflix tells kids to ‘learn’ about sex from R-rated American Pie films

TORONTO, December 7, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Netflix Canada has weighed in on the repeal of Ontario’s graphic sex education program, telling children they can “‘learn’ about sex” by watching sexually explicit films that have recently been added to the streaming service. 

“Since the Ontario sex-ed curriculum has gone back in time, you can ‘learn’ about sex the way teens in the ‘90s did: all the American Pie movies are now on Netflix,” tweeted the streaming company on Dec. 5. 

Johnny zakharia vancouver

The tweet was in reference to a decision of Ontario’s new Progressive Conservative Government — led by Doug Ford — to rollback the Kathleen-Wynne sex-education program after outrage from parents of all backgrounds and faith traditions. Wynne, who had a same-sex partner, is the former leader of the Liberal party. Under her leadership, the party was soundly defeated in the June 2018 election. 

Critics of the Liberals’ sex-ed curriculum say it destroys children’s innocence by exposing them to sexual concepts at too early an age, and that it presents gender theory as fact. The curriculum introduces homosexuality in Grade 3, masturbation in Grade 6, oral and anal sex in Grade 7, and teaches there are six genders — male, female, two-spirited, transgender, transsexual and intersex — rather than two biological sexes. At no point in the curriculum is sexual activity connected to love and marriage. 

The American Pie films are promoted as teen sex comedies that depict its young characters talking about and performing sex acts.

A Focus on the Family’s “Plugged In” film reviewer sums up the first film as “American Porn.”

American Pie takes sex and turns it into a sport,” the critic writes.  

“Oral sex is lumped together with masturbation as ‘practice for the big game.’ Both are encouraged by the only two parental figures in the film. Pornography is presented as healthy for a boy’s development and exciting to look at for girls. Voyeurism and invasion of privacy are winked at. The makers of this film would have you believe that sex is the ‘holy grail’ of teenage experiences. Unfortunately, a lot of teens are going to eat that message up. American Pie should really be retitled American Porn.”  

Pro-family advocates criticized Netflix for directing children to sexualized content.

“The Kathleen Wynne sex-ed, which has yet to be fully repealed, sexualizes children, promotes the unscientific gender identity theory, and overrides parental rights. The Wynne sex-ed, doesn’t even address the dangers of pornography. Yet here is Netflix referring children to films which feature hypersexualized discussions, and make a laughing matter of the production and distribution of child pornography,” said Tanya Granic Allen, president of Parents As First Educators, to LifeSiteNews.

“Given their track record (13 Reasons Why), should Netflix really be handing out advice for children on how and what to ‘learn’? Parents will decide ‘how much’ and ‘when’ in dealing with sex-ed, not the government, and certainly not Netflix,” she added. 

Jack Fonseca, Director of Political Operations for Campaign Life Coalition, told LifeSiteNews that it is crucial for conservatives to ensure that Premier Doug Ford keeps his promise to keep the Wynne curriculum out of schools. The province is running a consultation period until December 15 where parents can give the government “feedback” regarding their children’s education.   

“It is absolutely vital that parents and other concerned citizens participate in this consultation process using all three of the remaining vehicles that the government has provided to give it feedback,” he said. 

“Our children’s psychological, spiritual, and physical health depend on parents convincing Doug Ford to honor his promise of a total repeal of this child-sexualizing curriculum.” 

Fonseca added that the convicted pedophile who wrote the 2010/2015 curriculum, former Deputy Education Minister Ben Levin, has now served his sentence and is now lobbying online to normalize pedophilia. 

Campaign Life Coalition (CLC)  is the chief political arm of the pro-life movement in Canada. Earlier this year, it expressed its gratitude to Premier Ford for listening to parents who objected to the ousted Liberal government’s plans to indoctrinate their children with a graphic and age-inappropriate sex-ed curriculum

“Thank God that Premier Doug Ford listened to the parents who elected him, by repealing Kathleen Wynne’s radical sex curriculum as of September 2018,” wrote CLC. 

“However, the biased mainstream media has orchestrated a massive political disinformation campaign, unleashing a barrage of hundreds, perhaps thousands of fake news articles to try making it look like there’s widespread support for keeping Kathleen Wynne’s age-inappropriate sex curriculum,” it added.

CLC believes that the goal of the media’s political propaganda campaign is to pressure the new Ford government to abandon its promise to parents. 

“In these propaganda pieces, the media gives a platform to paid union activists, radical trans activists, and LGBTTIQ activists who do not at all represent the ordinary voting public which awarded Doug Ford a super majority, in large part, because of his campaign promise to repeal Wynne’s sex program,” it said.  

Now even porn-peddling Netflix has sneered at Ford for respecting parents’ wishes regarding their sexual education. 

Until December 6, parents had the opportunity to attend Town Halls to express their support for Ford’s repeal of the Levin-Wynne sex program. Now concerned Ontario residents are encouraged to fight for kids by filling in an online survey, answering questions on an open submission form, and emailing the government directly at The deadline for submissions is December 15. 

Complete proof and explanation of Purgatory; a guide for the doubtful

proof-of-purgatoryWHAT PURGATORY IS NOT

Contrary to protestant views, the Church did not invent the idea of purgatory; neither does the idea mean that people who die in mortal sin have hope of salvation. On the contrary, the Church teaches that those who die in mortal sin are lost, purgatory is meant for people who still have a certain unhealthy attachment to created goods, they are purified right before they enter paradise.

These people are already justified before God on earth, they have been forgiven of grave faults, “Holy Souls” as we call them, but are yet to be totally cleansed. Purgatory does not mean a second chance of conversion after death. Purgatory is for souls already forgiven on earth and not for unrepentant sinners.


Our very life is an interplay of “Yes” and “No”. On the one hand there are people who have closed their hearts to truth, love and to neighbour. Their choices echo a resounding “No” to the loving invitation of God to his love by obedience. On the other hand are those who are perfectly united with God, they have been made pure, their choices resound with a loving “yes” to God in response to his continual call. These people have followed the words of Christ and have died to sins.

A simple glance at the face of the world today, the possibility of having either extremes is rare though not totally impossible. What is more obtainable is an interplay of the “yes” and “no”; a continual struggle to keep up the practise of virtue or vice. Even the man who rejects God from time to time accepts the opportunity to do good, albeit for a temporal view in mind, and those who struggle to live for God sometimes succumb to temptations either out of weakness or momentary coldness towards God. At death however, the dangling pendulum of yes and no stops at either an irrevocable “Yes” or “No”; from then on, one will no longer have the ability to open himself to conversion any more.

What happens to the man who dies with venial sins in his soul? What happens to the man who has not fully expiated his undue attachment to created goods? These souls, insofar as they have uttered a “Yes” by way of conversion before death, will suffer a moment and later be saved, whilst those who have denied God and have died in sin will be lost; their free choice to be “Left alone by God” will be respected by the Lord; they shall be eternally excluded from communion with God and the Saints.

The Catholic idea of purgatory (as distinct from what some protestants think we teach about purgatory) is not entirely consoling neither is it to be hoped and depended upon by a Christian. Purgatory springs from a mature understanding of sin and its seriousness, and of the mercy of God. The sinner who promises himself purgatory hereafter does not achieve salvation since this is overt presumption. We do not even say that those in purgatory are sinners, they are called “Holy souls” since communion with God and prior justification on earth is REQUIRED to be there. What we say is: These Souls are Holy, having been justified by God’s grace before death.


Some theologians identify the fires of purgatory as Christ himself. When a soul who has died in communion with Christ appears before his Judge, with stains of sin still left in his soul. He is exposed to the naked fire of God’s eye, where all Truth is laid bare and all lies melt away in this fiery gaze of love and mercy. “Fire” signifies the intensity of the transformational property of this encounter with Jesus. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is one of those who held that the Fires of purgatory is Christ himself. He illustrates this in his book “Eschatology” and later on in his Encyclical “Spe Salvi”. The latter is quoted below:

“The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives become evident to us, there lies salvation. His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation “as through fire”. But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God. In this way the inter-relation between justice and grace also becomes clear: the way we live our lives is not immaterial, but our defilement does not stain us for ever if we have at least continued to reach out towards Christ, towards truth and towards love” Benedict XVI, Spe Salvi, Paragraph 47.



I have below an article I wrote on purgatory some time ago; it will serve as an attempt to further explain the idea of purgatory:

Protestants argue against the existence of purgatory, both the name and the idea it conveys are repudiated by them.

  • They say “Catholics deceive themselves by giving themselves hope of cleansing after a life of sin” They confound the doctrine of Purgatory with presumption; one which teaches that a sinner, after living in sin on earth may hope for heaven through the cleansing fires of purgatory.
  • They argue that it was the Catholic Church that “Invented” this doctrine, maybe with an “evil” intention.
  • That there cannot be salvation from ANY sin or its stain after death.
  • That there cannot be ANY transformation after death, that once someone meets pain in the afterlife, it is eternal, and once he meets joy, it is equally eternal.
  • That God cannot forgive any sin or grant any form of mercy/cleansing after death; death shuts the door to ALL MERCY.
  • They say there is no mention of both the word and the idea in the Scripture or any trace in ancient Christian History.



The Scripture is rife with the idea of Purgatory. In the book of Maccabees, the author captured an exhortation to pray for the dead; this prayer carries within it the possibility of salvation from sin after death:

“Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from sin.”  2 Maccabees 12:46

The above text whether or not it is accepted as canonical by the protestants, at least have some historical lesson: the Ancient Jews believed in the idea of praying for the dead; they believed in the idea of an intermediary place between Heaven and Hell, where the forefathers either enjoyed some sort of bliss (Limbo of the Fathers), or where people could be temporarily purified (Purgatory) as distinct from Hell where there is no hope of redemption.




“Now if any man builds on this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; …

Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abides which he has built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall SUFFER LOSS: but HE HIMSELF SHALL BE SAVED; yet so as by fire” 1 COR 3:12-15



  1. Everyone’s work/deed shall be judged
  2. Some people’s deeds will be found perfect
  3. Some will be found imperfect and therefore “Burned up”
  4. The one who loses shall “Suffer” and still be “Saved” as through a “Fire”
  5. That someone can “Suffer” for a moment after death and still be “Saved” after this suffering.


Paul exposes the error of those who hold there can be no mercy what so ever.

St Paul shows that someone can be judged, found imperfect (though already justified by Christ’s grace; built his albeit inferior house on Christ), be Purified and afterwards saved (as through a fire).


The Church uses the word “Purgatory” to represent the state of being “burned up” or “saved as through a fire”, since this “fire” has “purificatory” properties it is called “Purgatory” which represents the process of “cleansing”. The Church does not hold that there is some otherworldly PLACE with a big signpost that reads “PURGATORY”, NO. It is the act of cleansing that the Church concerns herself with not a geographical place. Again, the Church does not claim to know EVERYTHING about this “state” or “place”, She only teaches the existence of an intermediary state of purification, which belief has been held even before the birth of Christianity.

Christ’s words “Whoever sins against the Holy Spirit can neither be forgiven in this world nor in the world to come” confirms the idea of forgiveness “Post mortem” i.e. after death “in the next world”. “The next world” must rightly be identified with Heaven or his Kingdom of justice on earth, which is also Heaven. Christ would not say this if it were totally impossible to be forgiven in the “next world”. Let it be known still that “Forgiveness” does not mean the opportunity of conversion, but purification from temporal punishment due to sins ALREADY FORGIVEN ON EARTH.

The Church says: Someone can suffer for a moment after death and later be saved – this is purgatory, Scripture CONFIRMS it as can be seen above.

The Church says that God can cleanse someone of his imperfection even after death – this is Purgatory, Scripture CONFIRMS it.

Those who say it is either HEAVEN or HELL and who dismiss the idea of ANY intermediary place or state, forget the fact that even Christ himself directly referred to a place of intermediary rest enjoyed by the Ancient Patriarchs/Saints before his coming, a place/state we call “Limbo”. Jesus spoke of Lazarus dying and resting “in Abraham’s bosom”, the Rich man called, not to God, but to Abraham. (Luke 16) Though these holy souls were at rest, they were clearly not yet enjoying the perfect presence of God. That THERE CAN exist an intermediary place is demonstrated by God, to show he has power to make provisional arrangements for his Children who, though lacking in the degree of grace necessary for immediate enjoyment of blessedness, are still united with him, and consequently cannot be lost.

The very fact that “Nothing defiled” (Revelation 21:27) shall enter heaven and “All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God” (Romans3:23), “Whoever says he has no sin makes God a liar” (1 John 1:8) makes the idea of Purgatory all the more true. Other historical and biblical evidences and the faith of the Church shows it is certain. If nothing defiled can enter heaven, and if we all are defiled (referring exclusively to venial faults and temporal punishments due to sins), then it follows that NO ONE can enter heaven. Since ABSOLUTE SINLESSNESS is very difficult, to the point of near impossibility; no matter how holy a person is, he must at least falter in very little things (I am not saying a Christian cannot live without sin as though it is necessary, neither am I saying that it is impossible to live without a single mortal sin, it is very possible. However, it is impossible to be in absolute control of ourselves, so that every little movement of the heart, lips, eyes, is directed to God UNSELFISHLY, and ENTIRELY).

God bless you for reading. Sorry it was quite long 🙂

Four-day Lenten mission in Vancouver

Holy Family Parish is pleased to host a four-day Lenten mission entitled “First Encounters,” to be preached by Fr. Gerard Saguto, FSSP. Father will profile a few meetings between Our Lord and different persons in the gospel.

The mission will run from March 1 to 4 (Thursday to Sunday). There will be Holy Mass on Thursday and Friday evening and on Saturday morning, followed by a 90-minute program consisting of a sermon, Exposition, rosary, a second sermon, and Benediction. Fr. Saguto will preach at both Masses on Sunday. There will be confessions before all Masses. Admission is free. For a detailed schedule, please see the mission poster.

Fr. Saguto has served as Superior of the North American District of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter since 2015 and is based at the Fraternity headquarters in Pennsylvania. He was born on Long Island, New York, studied at Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary in Denton, Nebraska, and was ordained to the Sacred Priesthood in 2004.

Please mark your calendars! Free-will donation envelopes will be provided during the mission for those who would like to help Holy Family defray the expenses of the Lenten mission.

To learn more, please email


vancouver theology on tap

Inner City Health and the Gospel (Theology on Tap)

Published on Nov 20, 2017

An excerpt from “Innercity Health and the Gospel”, a talk by Dr. Stephen W. Hwang MD, MPH. Given at Toronto’s Theology on Tap, hosted by Faith Connections, October 30, 2017.

This is just a short portion of a longer evening of thought-provoking discussion, food, fun and friendship! To learn more about Toronto’s Theology on Tap, visit:…

Faith Connections is a young adult (19-39) ministry of Fontbonne Ministries, Sisters of St. Joseph, Toronto.

All the drug deaths in Vancouver is the reason to criminalize drugs

In the area around Vancouver, British Columbia 914 people died from drug overdoses in 2016. This is nearly double the number of deaths in 2015 (when 510 people died from drug overdoses). Prior to 2015 the record year for drug overdose deaths in British Columbia was 1998 (when 400 people died from drug overdoses).

The monthly total of 142 deaths in December 2016 is also a record high for British Columbia, surpassing the previous record of 128 deaths in November 2016. The death rate for so far this year indicates January 2017 will break December’s record.

This proves drug use increases as the number of supervised injection sites increase. The purpose of the supervised injection sites is to reduce drug-use fatalities by providing addicts with clean needles and immediate access to medical care in overdose cases.

Since the number of fatalities is actually increasing as the number of supervised injection sites increase, it is obvious that this is not working. This is because supervised injection sites send give the false impression that the government not only tolerates “recreational drug use” but also provides (free of charge) a “safety-net” for those who wish to get high.

Technically most of the deaths are not from heroin use per se. Heroin, ecstasy and other drugs in British Columbia (and elsewhere) now contain Fentanyl, a synthetic opioid that is far more powerful (and hence much cheaper) than heroin.

This is largely irrelevant. I say this because heroin (and other such drugs) are illegal precisely because they are poisonous. They should never be used for “recreational” purposes. Tolerating their use (even legalizing it) will not make them less poisonous.

So now the poison of heroin contains the even more powerful poison of Fentanyl making “recreational drug” use even more deadly. The answer is to discourage “recreational drug” use, not to facilitate it.

Nobody dies from withdrawal and withdrawal is the only way to escape addictive use. Treating an addict for overdose and then releasing the addict back to the street to inject themselves with drugs again does not prevent death, it only postpones it. The records show some addicts have been treated for overdoses again and again until finally their luck ran out and they died before they could be treated. One case was reported of an addict being treated for overdoses seven times in the same day!

Believe it or not this problem began with the legalization of “medicinal” marijuana in British Columbia. I put quotes around “medicinal” because marijuana in fact has no real medicinal use. It does not cure any illness or disease. It is only a “feel good” substance that relieves some symptoms about as well as “medicinal whiskey” does. This is why the American Medical Association does not recognize marijuana as a bona-fide medicine or recommend its use as a medicine.

Shortly after “medicinal” marijuana became available in British Columbia the government lost all control of its use. Recreational marijuana use increased so much that the police quit enforcing the law and several marijuana “coffee shops” began to operate in open defiance of the law. Soon Vancouver, Canada became known as the “Amsterdam” of Canada.

As always, hard drugs began to follow. The human brain starts to adjust to all “mind-altering” substances in something like an immune-system response. Soon what once was enough to get high is no longer enough. We see this in wine drinkers that become cognac drinkers and with beer drinkers that eventually graduate to bourbon.

So “recreational” drug users eventually find that marijuana is no longer enough for them and they go to harder drugs. Of course the providers of “recreational” drugs are right behind this, for profits in any addictive market (including alcohol and nicotine) greatly increase as the addiction of customers increases. More money is made selling hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine than selling marijuana. The drug market (like all markets) is competitive and the aggressive drug pushers soon dominate the market.

So before any community anywhere considers legalizing “medical” marijuana and “recreational” marijuana I urge them to take a close look at what has happened in the Vancouver, Canada area in the last few decades where the situation has progressed from legalized “medical” marijuana, to still-illegal but out-of-control “recreational” marijuana use, to soaring use of hard drugs that are killing nearly 1,000 people a year.

Illegal drugs are poisonous. They destroy people and they destroy societies. That is why they are illegal. If we are losing the war on drugs it is for the same reason all wars are lost: we just aren’t fighting hard enough

By Paul Zerzan

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

evidence for God Matt Nelson

Too often people have a parrot-like propensity to be seduced by a catchy saying, hold to it, and assert it repeatedly without thinking seriously about what they’re saying. They remember before they speak, but they don’t think before they speak. And the most astonishing fact is that all too often they really do believe they have said something wise.

Chesterton provided an example when he critiqued the popular exhortation to “believe in yourself” in his classic Orthodoxy. “Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world,” he said.  “They rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not true.” In short, when we get intellectually lazy we tend to lean thoughtlessly on faddish sayings. We speak on autopilot.

This is a human folly, so neither I nor those who believe what I believe are exempt from this inclination. Nonetheless, here I would like to narrow down my critique to one phrase often asserted by naturalists: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you’ve ever engaged in dialogue with a skeptic (or listened to others), you have likely heard this catchy saying in response to theistic claims. But it seems that it is often asserted as a brute fact without qualification—and all too often we let our skeptical friends get away with it.

Indeed, the saying has become something of a maxim among modern nonbelievers. Astronomer Carl Sagan popularized the principle, although the idea predates him. French scientist Pierre-Simon Laplace asserted something similar when he wrote, “The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness.”

In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, skeptical philosopher David Hume wrote, “A wise man . . . proportions his belief to the evidence.” Skeptics have cited this quotation in support of their belief that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but look closely at what Hume says; or better yet, look at what Hume does not say.

He says a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence, and I couldn’t agree more. He does not say, however, that the wise man proportions his evidence to the belief. Hume is right: it is wise to hold beliefs that are well supported by evidence.

Thus we return to our chief inquiry: what exactly does the skeptic mean by his principle that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”?

What makes a claim extraordinary?

The problem is, the term extraordinary in this case is arbitrary. It is unreasonable for the skeptic to merely state that belief in the supernatural is extraordinary without further qualification. As always in rational discourse, defining terms is paramount.

Perhaps by extraordinary the skeptic means uncommon or rare. That seems reasonable. But the paradox is that rare things happen all the time. Identical twins are born, lotteries are won, atheists become Catholics, and new species of animals are discovered. But not even the most committed skeptic would deny the reality of these rare events—at least once the evidence is out.

The skeptic sees the lottery winner on the news, and he believes without demanding access to the winner’s bank statement. The atheist sees his twins on the ultrasound monitor, but he believes despite not seeing his babies directly with his own eyes. He believes without direct observation because of what he deems to be trustworthy evidence.

Perhaps we might say that because the evidence supports the truth of an unexpected reality, the evidence is extraordinary by virtue of what it proves.

Or maybe the skeptic means that belief in the invisible is extraordinary and therefore requires extraordinary evidence. Yet he does not suspend belief in the existence of Darwin, electrons, the mind of his best friend, or the free will of Hitler, despite the fact that they are directly unobservable. He believes in these things on intuition and on the testimony of others, and for him that kind of evidence is good enough to warrant faith in the invisible.

Or perhaps he means by extraordinary what the term typically means—namely, something not ordinary. Ordinary is synonymous with usual or normal, so extraordinary would be “not the usual.” But here’s the thing: the majority position in regard to God’s existence—or the most usual belief across humanity—in almost every (if not every) era, including our own, has been belief in God, not atheism (this is the first premise of the common consent argument).

If this is the case, then perhaps we should flip this thing around and demand “extraordinary evidence” from the skeptics, since it is they who make the extraordinary claim, or the minority claim among men in this age and probably all the ages preceding it.

But there is still another question to ask :

What constitutes extraordinary evidence?

Now, here’s another scenario. Perhaps the skeptic calls a supernatural claim extraordinary because he believes, unlike atheism, there is no good evidence for theism,. On this view it is implied that the ordinary claim is that which has good evidence to support it.

But this viewpoint hinges on whether or not supernaturalism is, in fact, lacking evidentially and whether there is better evidence for atheism. If there is better evidence for theism than for atheism, then it is actually theism which is the more ordinary claim.

The skeptic must therefore demonstrate the evidential basis for his scepticism, and he must do it primarily with philosophy; for God is not just another “being among beings” taking up space in the empirical realm of the universe; rather, God is the sheer act of “to be” itself.

For while remaining present to the physical world as Creator and Sustainer, God is transcendent of the physical world, unbound by time, space, and matter. Thus trying to prove or disprove God’s existence by scientific evidence alone is as absurd as trying to prove or disprove Napoleon’s historical existence by geometry alone.

Thus the unbeliever is not exempt from a burden of proof, for even he is making a knowledge claim about reality: that God does not in fact exist. We wouldn’t let someone off the hook for asserting that they know aliens don’t exist. Rather, we would demand qualifying evidence for such a conclusive statement instead of accepting it as self evident.

So I would agree that if indeed there is no good evidence for a given belief, then to claim the contrary is to make an extraordinary claim. If an unorthodox claim is asserted—that unicorns exist, for example—there would be a burden of proof to show good evidence (or what philosophers call a defeater) for the commonly held belief that unicorns don’t actually exist.

Of course, in the case of unicorns there is no good evidence for their existence, and there is good evidence for its mythological fabrication. But unlike the arguments for unicornism—if there are any—the arguments for theism are a force to be reckoned with (as Trent Horn demonstrates in Answering Atheism and Hard Sayings) as they draw widely and deeply from philosophy, history, and science.

Thus the take-home point can be boiled down to this: the assertion “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” requires further qualifications in order to function as an acceptable principle of reason. Merely asserting it is not enough to validate it.

Furthermore, what is needed to reasonably believe any claim seems to be just good evidence; or evidence that makes a claim more reasonable to believe than its opposite.


Please contact Members of Parliament regarding Assisted Suicide

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will be billc14hearing interventions concerning Bill C-14, the bill that will legalize and “regulate” euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) will be presenting to the committee next week. We will be represented by: Amy Hasbrouck (EPC – VP), Hugh Scher (EPC – Legal Counsel) and Dr Will Johnston (Chair of EPC – BC).

Several MP’s have said that they are receiving more communication from members of the euthanasia lobby than from our supporters.

EPC needs you to contact members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with your concerns about Bill C-14.

Resources for your communicating with committee members:
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Alex Schadenberg.
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by the Physicians Alliance Against Euthanasia.
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Dr Will Johnston (EPC – BC).
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Charles Lewis.
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Andrew Coyne.
Link to the article on Bill C-14 by Amy Hasbrouck (Toujours Vivant – Not Dead Yet).

Committee Chair: Anthony Housefather (Lib) –

Committee Vice Chair: Ted Falk (CPC) –

Committee Vice Chair: Murray Rankin (NDP) –

Committee Member: Chris Bittle (Lib) –

Committee Member: Michael Cooper (CPC) –

Committee Member: Colin Fraser (Lib) –

Committee Member: Ahmed Hussen (Lib) –

Committee Member: Iqra Khalid (Lib) –

Committee Member: Ron McKinnon (Lib) –

Committee Member: Hon. Rob Nicholson (CPC) –

EPC also encourages you to send letters to your Members of Parliament. Link to contact your Member of Parliament.

You can mail letters to Members of Parliament (Postage Free) by sending letters to:

(Name) Member of Parliament
House of Commons
Ottawa Ontario K1A 0A6