OTTAWA, June 3, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – If the Trudeau Liberals eventually decide to widen their controversial euthanasia regime even further, as they’ve suggested they will, recent comments by the justice minister should provide fodder aplenty for their critics.

Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould has gone on the record insisting Bill C-14’s restrictions on euthanasia and assisted suicide need to be tougher than the Supreme Court decision in Carter or else it could allow assisted suicide for sex abuse victims, and combat veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

Last week the Liberal government won a resounding 186-137 final vote to get Bill C-14 through the House of Commons. Now the Senate is expected to hear from witnesses who say the bill does not offer enough protection to the weak and vulnerable and from advocates of medically assisted death who say it has so many restrictions the Supreme Court of Canada will throw it out.

If the Senate doesn’t remove the restrictions, warns Shanaaz Gokool, CEO of Dying with Dignity Canada, “Bill C-14 will be constitutionally dead on arrival: a warning the Liberal government has chosen to ignore. We encourage members of the Senate not to make the same mistake.”

In its 2015 Carter decision, the Supreme Court reversed its 1993 Rodriguez ruling and found that “consenting” adults have a right to “medical assistance in dying” – assisted suicide and euthanasia – if they have “grievous and irremediable” conditions causing “intolerable” suffering.

The Supreme Court delayed enforcement of its decision first for a year and then, at the insistence of the Liberal government, added a few more months. But the decision comes into force June 6.

Without a new law, all there is to protect the vulnerable from agreeable killers is the broad guidance of Carter and the particular policies of the provincial colleges of physicians. But this, according to Wilson-Raybould, would leave Canada with “one of, if not the broadest assisted dying regimes in the world.”

Bill C-14 would restrict medical help in dying to those “in an advanced stage of irreversible decline” from an incurable disease, illness or disability for whom death is “reasonably foreseeable.”

Justifying the tougher approach as a balance between opposing lobby groups, Wilson- Raybould told the House of Commons, “Under an approach where any serious medical condition is eligible, the law would be saying that an assisted death could be an acceptable treatment for a soldier with post-traumatic stress disorder, a young person who suffered a spinal cord injury in an accident or a survivor whose mind is haunted by memories of sexual abuse.”

But one of the leading advocates for the unrestricted right to die, Dalhousie University professor Jocelyn Downie, was cited by Canadian Press rebutting the justice minister. None of her hypothetical instances were “irremedial,” said Downie, and so would still have been blocked by Supreme Court’s criteria in Carter.

Wilson-Raybould also justified the bill’s omission of “advanced requests” – something dearly sought by assisted death advocates. This would allow people to pre-request euthanasia in anticipation of losing their cognitive powers due to a disease such as Alzheimers.

However, the justice minister explained, “Even the Alzheimer Society of Canada” has argued that “medical assistance in dying should only be possible when a person is competent at the time the assistance is administered. It says that advance requests not only pose risks to vulnerable patients, but they could also contribute to false stereotypes, undermining its message that it is possible to live well with this disease.”

While the Liberal government has been pushing for final passage before the June 6 Supreme Court deadline, anti-euthanasia advocates are disputing their claim that the current bill is necessarily more problematic than the regime envisioned in the Supreme Court ruling.

Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, says the Trudeau government bill “must be defeated.”

“For those who are concerned that Bill C-14 will not be passed by June 6, stop worrying, it will definitely not become law by June 6. Therefore the approach needs to be to amend Bill C-14 in the Senate and if it is not adequately amended, to defeat the bill,” he wrote this week.

“If this bill passes, in its current form, the language of Bill C-14 will lead to significant growth of euthanasia. There will be many stories that people will refer to as a ‘slippery slope.’ Let me tell you now, these stories will not be the result of a ‘slippery slope’ but rather they will be based on the fact that the language of Bill C-14 allowed these acts to occur.”

Comment on site (Ruth Bard):

I should think suffering in Hell for eternity would be fairly intolerable, but no one seems to be worried about that, in spite of the fact that we are without any knowledge of what lies beyond death, other than the testimony of the One who came back. But the people advocating death-by-doctor aren’t listening to Him

My comment on the entire article: I do think I had some foresight four years ago. Do I have prophetic powers, or don’t I? Of course, I think the eternal damnation argument works in reverse. Hell is eternal.

Black Swan? Christian kills his apostate daughter

The Criminal Court prosecutor on Sunday charged a man and his brother with complicity in premeditated murder in connection with the killing of a woman, who allegedly converted from Christianity to Islam, in Ajloun, 70km northwest of Amman, official sources said.

The 26-year-old victim died after receiving several blows to the head with a wooden stick and a rock in a forest in Khirbet Wahadneh on April 30.

The victim’s father headed to a police station on Wednesday evening and turned himself in, declaring that “he killed his daughter because she converted to Islam,” a senior official source said. 

However, police had suspicions that more than one person took part in the murder based on an autopsy report prepared by pathologist Ali Shotar from Irbid’s National Institute of Forensic Medicine, the official told The Jordan Times.

Shotar, who established that the woman died of a crushed skull that caused heavy bleeding, also discovered bruises on her wrists, a medical source told The Jordan Times.

“Shotar concluded that more than one person was involved because the bruises indicated that she was held while she was beaten by the wooden stick and the 50cm by 30cm rock,” the medical source added.

In his initial confession to police, the 51-year-old father said that he learnt about his daughter’s conversion to Islam from another daughter.

“The victim’s decision to convert was a secret but she decided to tell one of her sisters who eventually told their father,” the official source said, citing the suspect’s initial confession.

The father then informed his 49-year-old brother and they allegedly plotted to murder her, the source added.

Both men were ordered detained at a correctional and rehabilitation centre pending further investigation into the incident, the source added.

Honor killing is dharmic

If a person of lower varna (caste) has sexual intercourse with a woman of higher varna, with or without her consent, he is to be killed. (Manusmriti, VIII: 366)

Comment: The fact that honor killing is justified in many religions and ideologies just proves that honor killing is not ONLY Islamic.

Honor killing and FGM: “culture”?

Muslims often claim that honor killing and FGM have nothing to do with Islam, because they are also found in non-Muslim cultures. But this is ridiculous. We could just as easily claim that male circumcision, or the belief in God have nothing to do with Islam, because they are also found among non-Muslim cultures. Muslims will scream that honor killing and FGM cannot be compared to male circumcision because male circumcision is wonderful, but that is beside the point. Whether something  is part of Islam, or part of culture is totally unrelated to whether something is wonderful. When something can somewhat defended, Muslims will claim it to be part of Islam. When something is generally hated, it suddenly becomes “culture”.  But why would eradicating Somali “culture” NOT be “racist”?  Why is it that diverse cultures like the Somali, the Moroccan, the Turkish and the Pakistani ALL have honor killing, and only place “culture” above “Islam” when it comes to honor killing? Why do Somalis only consider “culture” more important than “Islam” when it comes to FGM?  Weird, weird. Another reason why Muslims can get away with claiming that honor killing and FGM have nothing to do with Islam, is because honor killing and FGM are not clearly found in the Koran, like chopping off hands for theft. But actually, the Islamic teaching that sex between non-Muslim men and Muslim women is blasphemy, and the teaching that Muslims must take the law in their own hands, is solid proof that honor killing is Islamic.

“Thus if [a] Muslim commits adultery his punishment is 100 lashes, the shaving of his head, and one year of banishment. But if the man is not a Muslim and commits adultery with a Muslim woman his penalty is execution…Similarly if a Muslim deliberately murders another Muslim he falls under the law of retaliation and must by law be put to death by the next of kin. But if a non-Muslim who dies at the hand of a Muslim has by lifelong habit been a non-Muslim, the penalty of death is not valid. Instead the Muslim murderer must pay a fine and be punished with the lash….Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim…then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain…Again, the penalties of a non-Muslim guilty of fornication with a Muslim woman are augmented because, in addition to the crime against morality, social duty and religion, he has committed sacrilege, in that he has disgraced a Muslim and thereby cast scorn upon the Muslims in general, and so must be executed….Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them.” — Sultanhussein Tabandeh, A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

There you have it. This is a far better proof of the Islamic nature of honor killing, than the fact that parents and grandparents can kill their children without paying blood-money. After all, lawful killing of offspring would also cover abortion and euthanasia, actions generally abhorred by Muslims.

Interestingly, the same Muslims who place scorn on local cultures, did adopt foot-binding in China. In general, Islam only copies local culture when it is sick and disgusting. In the Netherlands, Muslims are starting to have vicious attack dogs.

Finally, if honor killing and FGM have nothing to do with Islam, it is obvious “Islamophobes” are far worse liars than Anti-Semites; this would mean that “Islamophobia” is worse than Anti-Semitism. “Islamophobia” would kill 1.5 billion innocent people, Anti-Semitism would only kill 20 million innocent people.