Dear Ken Epp,
Aw, hell. I'm just going to go ahead and call you Ken.
By now you may or may not have read the letter Lulu, the perpetually-crazed matriarch of the Canadian Cynic Temple of Sycophantic Groupthink, wrote to you about Bill C-484.
And I'm imagining that if that is the case then right about now, you and I must be thinking approximately the same thing.
How someone could build their entire objection to the Bill in question on a refusal to listen and somehow actually be proud of that really is almost inconceivable to the rational mind.
But, then again, these aren't rational minds we're dealing with, are we?
After all, the "Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada's false claims about Bill C-484". Is a fairly stolid rebuttal of the misinformation the pro-abortion lobby is using to promote their extreme agenda in regards to the Unborn Victims of Crime Act.
And their response to it is precisely what? "Lalalalalalala... I can't hear yooooouuuu". If one couldn't rest assured they were dealing with grown adults as opposed to pre-schoolers, one would wonder.
After all, it's remarkable how so fundamental fact as the fact that Bill C-484 contains an extremely explicit clause stipulating that the Bill may not be applied to abortion, or any other act (of commission or omission) by the mother is entirely ignored by these people.
Yet they somehow manage to produce such fallacious bombshells as "You can commission and release all the official documentation in the world, Ken, but it will never change the fact that C-484 is a back door attempt to recriminalize abortion in Canada."
Apparently, despite the fact that the legislation expressly forbids the use of the bill as such, Bill C-484 is "a back door attempt to recriminalze abortion". And nothing changes that. Apparently, not even the facts.
How can one deal with such people, Ken? Eventually, one has to realize that you cannot deal honestly with people incapable of honesty, and cannot deal logically with people incapable of logic.
Unfortunately, however, your political opposition is willing to do so.
Presumably, mr Dion has read the legislation in question, and understands fully that the legislation explicitly stiupulates that it may not be used in cases where abortion is involved. Yet, he wants to take it as a golden opportunity to rally Canada's pro-abortion lobby to his side, and emulating Paul Martin's failed 2006 election gambit in the process.
Meanwhile, he's overlooking an important fact:
Numerous members of his caucus voted in favour of Bill C-484.
Will he ask Raymond Bonin to publicly discuss his views on abortion? How about Derek Lee? Paul Steckle? How about the star of the Liberal attempts to smear Brian Mulroney, Paul Szabo? Or any of the other Liberal MPs who voted in favour of BIll C-484?
I'm not holding my breath on that one, Ken. Somehow, I doubt you're holding yours, either.
Once again, Ken, these are facts. Just as the "fact" that Bill C-484 is a backdoor attack on abortion "rights". Despite the fact that the bill itself forbids its usage as such.
It's an incredible age we're living in, I think -- an age where rhetoric formulated in express willful ignorance of facts has somehow become fact, and the facts themselves apparently something else.
All the same, Ken, we really can't let the bastards get us down. We have to remember what is at stake.
See, Ken, people like Lulu and her cohorts have long ago convinced themselves they're entitled to ideological dominance on the topic of abortion -- so much so to the extent that they honestly believe that no one who disagrees with them should be allowed to voice their opinion on the matter.
That's what the opposition to Bill C-484 is about. It isn't about abortion -- it's about trying to prevent anyone who doesn't agree with the extreme agenda of the pro-abortion lobby doesn't even dream of attempting to even discuss the matter, let alone ever try to act according to their convictions -- in this case, that those who murder unborn children in the course of murdering or assaulting their mothers should be punished for it.
A wondrous age, indeed, Ken.
But not all is lost. After all, polls have consistently indiciated that the majority of Canadians favour protection for unborn life. So long as that remains a fact -- an actual, honest-to-god fact, rather than rhetoric cavorting as fact -- an end-run around the extremists and around the politicians who are so eager to pander to them will remain possible.
Which is precisely what you have to do, Ken. But your work is cut out for you.
It will be hard work, but stay the course Ken.
Yours in solidarity,