Pro-life strike (abortion boycott) mission: To purify our prayers and other pro-life efforts, and to make a concrete difference, we refuse to fund the abortion industry. We boycott corporate abortion funding, and hold back abortion taxes. We pray for life; we will not pay for death!
Have been dilatory in making this blog report: On Jan. 14, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada announced, with no explanation, that it would not hear David Little's appeal with regard to tax funding for abortion. This is a setback, but David is not about to be silenced.
As noted almost 2 months ago, David Little lost his New Brunswick appeal case, and was preparing to try to appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court. That possibility is becoming nearer.
As a friend of David, I have been privileged to see a copy of his "Application for Leave to Appeal" to the Supreme Court, and can tell you I am quite impressed. David finally has a good lawyer working with him on this important case, and this document shows that.
One of the points made in this application, and which has not been made heretofore, is the distinction between freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. Prior decisions have muddled this distinction, stupidly observing that Mr. Little's freedom of religion was not being denied by taxpayer funding for abortion. Evidently, what was meant was that David was still free to go to church on Sunday and pray to God, just so long as he didn't let his religious beliefs get in the way of his civic duty to fund the slaughter.
OK, says the present argument, perhaps Mr. Little's freedom of religion has not been explicitly denied. But his freedom of conscience has been trampled upon, and that, too, is a violation of human rights. Now, I'm not sure that this distinction should be pivotal. Last time I checked, religion and conscience were pretty solidly connected. But then again, I'm no lawyer.
What really grabbed my attention in this document was the argument that I have to believe is the pivotal legal argument: the primacy of natural law over positive law. A statement in the document says this:
As a matter of academic jurisprudence, the practical application of the founding principles means that positive law (such as legislation permitting the killing of innocent human beings) must yield to natural law (which stands on a higher law that forbids the legal killing of innocent human beings) in circumstances where there is a conflict.
In my opinion, it's high time this principle was invoked in a court of law, and I am delighted to finally see a lawyer who is willing to make this point.
I would love to learn from a lawyer if what I have heard is true: Didn't natural law used to be taught in law school as the basis for all human law?
Well, anyway, that's the news from the Canadian front. Stay tuned. And please keep David, his family, and this important case in your prayers.
In its denial of conscientious tax resistance, the muddled legal opinion cited in the previous post contains this pivotal statement:
Otherwise, everyone who disagrees with government policies and the expenditure of public monies in furtherance of those policies would be entitled to abandon their obligation to bear their proportionate share of the national debt while continuing to receive no-cost public benefits such as Medicare.
While this reasoning is rather infantile, there is something in its logic for us to be wary of. In his entire statement, Justice Robertson never questions the no-cost public benefits; their necessity is a foregone conclusion.
From there he reasons that we ought to be humble, grateful and compliant taxpayers before such governmental largesse and beneficence. The lesson for us is this: The Socialist road - and government aid is Socialist - may lead inexorably to a deadly and tyrannical end.
For example, a frequent complaint from pro-aborts is that they don't want to be burdened with supporting more welfare babies. Better that the taxpayer pay for their murder than to pay for their expensive little lives. Given a Socialist premise, their dour pessimism and murderous sympathies contain a certain sad logic. In sharp contrast, pro-lifers want to be more generous toward both mother and child, and see the new baby as a priceless resource, not a burden. But if both camps accept without challenge that the government (i.e. taxpayers) must fund and control the expenditures, it will just be a tug-o-war over money.
Or take the recent saccharin eulogies for the late Edward Kennedy coming from the mouths and pens of Christian leaders. After all, the good Senator worked hard to open the public spigot and fill the public trough. Yes, there was his unfortunate blindness toward the pre-born, but generally, he helped poor people, and surely that is the Christian thing to do, right? It's a balancing act - some good, some not so good. But consider that government aid programs and tax-funded abortion most usually have the same champions. Perhaps this is no anomaly; perhaps it's not a balancing act at all, but two threads in the same ungodly tapestry.
The confusion for Christians may begin in equating government programs with Christian charity. Rather than the Church or individual Christians giving from their own pockets, the deep pockets of government are tapped. This is so much neater, and seems so generous. The docile Christian taxpayer can now excuse his share in tax-funded abortion by noting that his taxes also help the poor. It's the balancing act again. How neat.
When the state becomes god, it becomes Moloch.
It's also neater for the recipient of government aid, who needn't humble himself before his neighbor. In the process, he, too becomes docile toward the government, afraid to challenge the hand that gives.
Ascribing such paternalistic power to the state is not a good thing, even when the results seem to be beneficial. Looking to the state to meet our needs, we become its slave. The state becomes our master, perhaps even our god. But when the state becomes god, it becomes Moloch. Or, at best, an incompetent god. The state that feeds you will eventually exhaust its food supply and starve you. The state that provides medical care will end up taking your life. The state that cares for you will soon ask for your soul. And will you, grown wan and dependent, acquiesce?
On April 29, David Little appeared before the New Brunswick Court of Appeal (roughly equivalent to a State Supreme Court in the U.S.) for the latest chapter in his legal case to establish that tax-funded abortion violates one's right of conscience and therefore one's freedom of religion. For more details on this important case, read David's own summary account here.
On August 20, the three-judge panel rendered their judgment against David, and has recommended that he be denied the right to appeal. The opinion, written by The Honourable Mr. Justice Joseph T. Robertson, an alleged Catholic, can be read (in PDF format) here.
David has repeatedly vowed that he will go to jail rather than obey the unjust human authorities in this matter. He has one more opportunity before fulfilling that vow, and is now preparing an appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court.
