César Fernández-Stoll

César Fernández-Stoll
Versión hispana

Sunday, December 12, 2010

RE: First Debate on Canada's Coercive Abortion Bill Set for Monday

From: Cesar Fernandez-Stoll [CesarFStoll@gmail.com]
Sent: November 1, 2010 9:26 PM
To: 'JenniM8@parl.gc.ca'
Cc: 'IgnatM@parl.gc.ca'
Subject: RE: First Debate on Canada's Coercive Abortion Bill Set for Monday

Dear Honourable Marlene Jennings, P.C., M.P.
Liberal Critic for Justice and the Attorney General

Thanks very much for your reply.

As I intended to express in my note, this type of legislation should not be necessary at all, in a free society this is, because in Canada, long before our times of political correctness, we’ve been enjoying the protection of the law not be coerced, especially on matters that represent the destruction of life.

It seems to me that what makes the difference though is that statement where you mention that ‘attempt to reintroduce the debate on abortion nobody wants’. Perhaps you are generalizing a bit, because if the bill is presented at all, clearly there is someone, and I am sure is many more than one, interested not simply on debating the matter but on the fact established that debate is not the right word for it but simply respect for human dignity and protection for life.

However, it is even more interesting that you bring these pieces of the Criminal Code as arguments of ‘debate (?)’ whereby you try to imply these to be valid only for women, or is it people that accepted as humans by the law, or what is it? Hard to say, because the real point of divergence is in who is alive and who is not, or rather living people and the others who of course, you fail to qualify, perhaps for lack of space or maybe because you would be compel to produce some sort of line to be crossed for a person to become human, not before the Parliament of Canada, which we all know has very capricious ways to look at people, specially when represented votes is concerned. The true matter is when a human being is one and so is in position of the dignity we all have or at least are meant to have, as human of course, created to the image and likeness of the only living God.

If your immediate thought is that you do not believe God exists, then I can see why is that you consider not to be any room for debate, because you in fact do not consider anyone, including you or I, with any dignity, and for that matter, any worth other that what is useful given the circumstances. On the other hand, if you claim to believe in the only living God, our omnipotent creator, the one and only almighty; then you must agree than more than saying that the law is to say when a person starts being one is in order, but it is the natural order what needs to take precedence and for that matter, unless you have any other explanation, we are humans and alive and with the dignity only humans possess, from conception to natural death.

It is sad indeed that we must get to this point in the history of the world where these resources need to be called upon in order to see the truth that is before us and which certain people prefer to make us all believe we do not want even to debate and is life, human life and dignity.

Because life is something so difficult to resolve, for some people, it is necessary yet to provide women with the ability to become mothers, what God in their nature has given their gender as the most special and precious gift. All it is intended is for the law to protect the choice of any woman to choose, this time though, the right choice, to keep their babies as opposed to sacrifice them to the death gods of selfishness.

Clearly the issue has never been choice but the type of choice exercised and we all know, even if debate is suppressed because ‘nobody wants it (yeah right)’ that to kill a human being is murder, be it as an embryo, elder, or terminally ill, it is always a crime because it is denying this person his/her dignity and the grace to be with God and according to His plan.

César Fernández-Stoll

-----Original Message-----
From: JenniM8@parl.gc.ca [mailto:JenniM8@parl.gc.ca]
November 1, 2010 9:22 AM
To: cesarfstoll@gmail.com
Subject: RE: First Debate on
Canada's Coercive Abortion Bill Set for Monday

Dear César Fernández-Stoll:

Thank you for your recent letter on the topic of Bill C-510, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (coercion), also known as “Roxanne’s Law”.

This Private Member’s Bill is a clear attempt to reintroduce an unwanted debate on abortion to the House of Commons. As such, I will not be supporting it at second reading. The Prime Minister’s Office has also indicated, after some delay, that it does not support this legislation.

It is important to note that the remedies proposed by Mr. Bruinooge are wholly redundant, as existing sections of the Criminal Code already apply to cases of “coerced abortion.” These include those related to uttering threats, assault, and extortion:


264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat
(a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person;
(b) to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or
(c) to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person.

265. (1) A person commits an assault when
(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or
(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.

346. (1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.

Please note as well that the provisions for sentencing under C-510, a maximum of 5 years for an indictable offence are either equal to or LESS than the equivalent for sentencing under the sections mentioned above. Aggravated assault for example carries a sentence of up to 14 years for an indictable offence.

While we do not agree on this issue, I appreciate you bringing your views to my attention.


The Honourable Marlene Jennings, P.C., M.P.
Liberal Critic for Justice and the Attorney General

From: Jennings, Marlene - M.P.
Sent: November 1, 2010 8:32 AM
To: Jennings, Marlene - Assistant 2
Subject: FW: First Debate on Canada's Coercive Abortion Bill Set for Monday

From: Cesar Fernandez-Stoll [mailto:cesarfstoll@gmail.com]
October 31, 2010 9:32 PM
To: Ignatieff, Michael - M.P.
Subject: First Debate on
Canada's Coercive Abortion Bill Set for Monday

Mr. Michael Ignatieff, Member of Parliament for Etobicoke—Lakeshore and Leader of the Opposition:
As I have now moved my residence to your district, you are now my representative in Parliament and working for me as part of the community you represent.

Let me start this ‘relationship’ by bringing to your attention the article in LifeSiteNews.com; First Debate on Canada’s Coercive Abortion Bill Set for Monday. This talks about introduced legislation as private Bill C-510, attempts to protect women against coercion to abort, or more clearly to terminate pregnancy.

It is absurd enough to consider that in Canada, no legislation does exist to protect any human being from the beginning of life, which unless you can prove differently; start at conception and goes all the way through natural death. We all know, even if as it appear to be, under constant denial, that abortion is about destruction of life, as an assault on human dignity, not just that of the woman as a direct protagonist of such a barbaric act but especially and most particularly on the dignity of the human person in the body of that woman. It is definitively a matter of choice but is also a crime, because it involves the murdering of a baby. Criminals have free choice as well, otherwise the law would be persecuting people just for the crimes they might commit instead of everyone being innocent before being proof guilty.
Of course, the are the ones advocating this ‘right’ which women already have, advocating as well the irresponsibility of the women so that they can remain unaccountable for what they choose, yes, there is the case of rape, but the victim of a rape where the woman becomes pregnant is not just the woman, but also the innocent human being in her womb, should her the decision be to eliminate him/her so that she can be ‘free’, while abdicating the role of victim on behalf of her selfish preservation of her own life style.
What it becomes problematic about this bill is that it is already a crime to coerce anyone to do something against his/her will. In any free society as Canada claims to be, it should not be require to protect anyone from being coerced to ‘accept’ to remove a ‘tissue’, as the advocates of the so called ‘freedom of choice’ claim, let alone the fact that it is a human being who gets murdered by that choice.
We’ve been there before and over and over again. Why is it that the law is being twisted on behalf of selfishness and crime being covered just because of protecting life styles while life is threatened and freedom coerced and then our representatives, including the Prime Minister, seem to feel themselves threatened on their peace cowardice while the law is being so much altered?
We can notice a similar situation with all the efforts put for the destruction of marriage and family, it seems that certain individuals who by choice, opt for a degrading and destructive life style; they must be protected over and above everyone else even trumping individual freedoms and so new bills need to be presented to accommodate these newly invented ‘rights’.
If the need exist for such a bill, because women can have rights only for some things but not for others and so they could be legally coerced for some things but not for others, so be it in the name of the ‘slavery’ we are suffering, otherwise, that means that no such need exists to provide extra protection to anyone because that provision already exists and if so, the matter is of protection life, again, form conception to natural death and, now that we are on that, of the family and marriage as the only possible definition, as the union of one man and one woman before God, and nothing else.
I hope you all consider the illogical trend to be established should this bill be rejected, because women would be bound to obey whatever anyone else decides on their bodies, which sounds kind of the anti-thesis of what the so called ‘pro-choice’ movement predicates, except that this bill too, establishes the intention of a woman to really protect their babies in their own womb and so, to reject or accepted will reflect the hypocrisy of a system that see women as a piece of meat, politically exploitable and sexually profitable and human beings over all as nothing but commodities to be manipulated, degraded to inhuman levels that go even lower than most animals or species populating the earth.
As my representative, I am asking you to vote in favour of this bill C-510 while it is only a protection for something already available but politically nullified. by correctness, the dignity of women and babies and the freedom to be accountable and responsible for the choices exercised under that freedom.

César Fernández-Stoll
307-88 Palace Pier Court
Etobicoke, Ontario, M8V 4C2
Post a Comment