Church denies Lawrence MacAulay's nomination meeting

Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

Cardigan MP Lawrence MacAulay greets supporters after his nomination meeting Monday, which had to change location at the last minute to Red's Corner hotel in Poole's Corner after the original meeting at a Roman Catholic church hall was suddenly denied by the parish.

No one is going on the record as to exactly why the Cardigan Liberal nomination meeting on Monday suddenly had to move from a church hall to Pooles Corner.

It was to have been in St. Joachim’s church hall in Vernon River but after the church contacted party organizers Saturday, the meeting shifted about 20 kilometres further east to Red’s Corner restaurant.

"I wasn't involved but the president was called and told that the hall was not available," said MacAulay after the nomination meeting. "That's all I can tell you."

"You can think what you like but what I can tell you is that we had to get a new place and within an hour or so we had a new place and as you can see it worked out pretty well."

The meeting room at Red's Corner was packed with just over 100 supporters along with politicians past and present.

The change of meeting location and the abortion issue was never mentioned once in the official proceedings of the nomination meeting.

MacAulay is pro-life and said in The Guardian last week he believed Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau's recent pronouncement on abortion still allowed sitting MPs to vote their conscience.

The day that story was published, word came down from the Liberal leadership that no, all Liberal MPs are expected to vote the party policy of pro-choice.

"I am pro life myself and I understand the feeling well but you saw my statement, and that's it," said MacAulay.

His statement sent by email to the Guardian last week said "I am personally pro-life, and have long held these beliefs; however, I accept and understand the party position regarding a woman’s right to choose.”

In an email sent to The Guardian Monday, Barb Wood, who is the contact person for the St. Joachim’s church, said the hall committee held a meeting during which it decided to deny the hall for the nomination meeting.

The committee thought it was necessary to respect parishioners’ concerns, said Wood.

What those concerns are is unclear and a request to interview someone from the committee was denied.

Trudeau said in May that new Liberal MPs have to be pro-choice, but issued a grandfather clause saying that already- sitting MPs can continue to seek nomination, regardless of their abortion views.

MacAulay has represented residents of his riding for more than 25 years and is the longest-serving federal politician in P.E.I.’s history, the second longest in the House of Commons.

John MacKinnon, the Cardigan riding president, said he wasn’t very excited when he got the news at about 4:35 p.m. Saturday that the meeting location had to change.

“I guess if they didn’t want us there they didn’t want us there,” he said.

It wouldn’t have been the first nomination meeting the Liberals held at the parish hall. Last week the provincial Liberal party held the nomination for Education Minister Alan McIsaac at St. Joachim’s.

For the Cardigan meeting, MacKinnon said the party planned to have people wait at the church to notify anyone who arrived there that the meeting was moved, in case they didn’t hear about the new venue on such short notice.

As it turned out, a sign was all that greeted party faithful heading to the church hall.

"We couldn't miss this, even if it meant a scenic drive through the country looking for a crowd of cars," said the always jocular former P.E.I. Liberal cabinet minister Robert Morrissey.

The Liberals had the church hall booked for more than a week and MacKinnon said he thought the change would impact the turnout.

“It will to a certain extent, I guess.”

Organizations: Liberal MPs, House of Commons

Geographic location: Vernon River

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • thinking...
    June 24, 2014 - 18:26

    For those who hold the anti-life stance so be it, that is your choice. Services are paid for by the province within a few hours travel just as are many other services are available to Islanders and paid for by the province. Bravo to the new initiative that provides bus service! A family member traveled to Halifax to have a quadruple bypass - the amazing thing was, there wasn't anyone screaming that his rights were violated because the service wasn't provided here. The fact was, we were darn glad the service was available and we gratefully took advantage of it, traveling off Island, staying in a motel, and waiting until he was able to travel back to PEI. Yes, it is a financial hardship, there is no denying that 5-6 days in another province isn't costly but it is difficult to put a price on human life isn't it ... and we are glad to have the family member here as a result. Thank you Government of PEI for providing health care, we have so much to be thankful for. Is it perfect? No. But we could look at what is available elsewhere and we might think twice about complaining. I have friends who live in Africa where people literally walk for a day in hot, dry, dusty conditions in order to get themselves or family members to a clinic. Something to think about.

    • Bob MacDonald
      June 27, 2014 - 06:55

      Not really - for heart surgery you require a specialist that is not readily available on the island or elsewhere for that matter and probably costs 100 times what an abortion would plus an abortion is a fairly easy procedure that doesn't require a specialist.

  • Peter
    June 24, 2014 - 18:11

    I wonder ... what does it take sometimes to get through to some people? Pro_Choice does NOT mean Pro-Abortion. I'm Pro-Choice .. 100%, and I choose Life. Is this really so hard to understand? Or are people controlled and told what to think and how to choose by some "religion" or "religious leader"? Can they not think for themselves?

  • Jean MacBeth
    June 24, 2014 - 18:10

    And so,the power between church and state still goes on...even behind the scenes?! Surely this was not the rationale behind the denial of the Cardigan Liberal's nomination meeting in Vernon River!? But were that the case,concerning Pro-life/Pro-choice issues...do we not see that any issues,dealt with by our politicians...do not/should not determine any meeting's location? Though men have always had the "choice" to engage/disengage themselves with the unborn/born,to move on (so to speak)... women may never have that same "choice"? But,where in a "democracy" should a meeting be stalled over personal opinions?!?!

    • Sean Hogan
      July 01, 2014 - 05:06

      What power between Church and State? There is none here, all they are saying is that if you support abortion and MacAulay said he would vote that way from now on, you're not welcome to use the facilities to promote yourself. That's fairly simple and it is a Church facility not a government one. It takes 2 to have a baby, remember that and the majority of abortions are birth control abortions. And that is far and away the use of abortion everywhere. You speak of democracy and the Church as its owner of the hall has every right to deny its building based upon its beliefs that life is sacred. I don't know what you mean by democracy here because the members of the Church would support that move in the majority.

  • rick
    June 24, 2014 - 17:48

    As I see it, Trudeau is just finding a way to get rid of the old fogeys , - why have them around messing up his pot head.

  • gina
    June 24, 2014 - 17:43

    to jean Macbeth, - "where in a democracy should a meeting be stalled over personal opinions"? If you are referring to the change of venue, I would say that anywhere in a democracy, the owners of a venue is free to rent or not to any one they like, --- or at least that is how it used to be. In this case they chose not to rent, - and more power to them, at least somebody has principles.

  • Peter
    June 24, 2014 - 17:28

    MacAulay is pro-life and said in The Guardian last week he believed Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau's recent pronouncement on abortion still allowed sitting MPs to vote their conscience. The day that story was published, word came down from the Liberal leadership that no, all Liberal MPs are expected to vote the party policy of pro-choice. I don't see what the big deal is here. I'm non-denominational, pro-choice... and I choose life. Others, for their own reasons may make a different choice, but it's their choice to make. As for myself, no religion will ever tell me how to think or how to choose. I'm not a sheep.

    • Sean Hogan
      July 01, 2014 - 05:08

      Peter, the pro-life point of view contains lots of thought and scientific arguments, that is why one is pro-life, however, one can't be pro-choice and say one supports pro-life. Its hypocrisy and actually one can say that the thought of being prolife and prochoice at the same time must have decided this choice with little thought.

  • Jean MacBeth
    June 24, 2014 - 15:14

    And so,the power between church and state still goes on...even behind the scenes?! Surely this was not the rationale behind the denial of the Cardigan Liberal's nomination meeting in Vernon River!? But were that the case,concerning Pro-life/Pro-choice issues...do we not see that any issues,dealt with by our politicians...do not/should not determine any meeting's location? Though men have always had the "choice" to engage/disengage themselves with the unborn/born,to move on (so to speak)... women may never have that same "choice"? But,where in a "democracy" should a meeting be stalled over personal opinions?!?!

  • Mr.RC
    June 24, 2014 - 14:02

    I AM GLAD THIS ACTION WAS TAKEN.I WAS GOING TO VOTE LIBERAL BUT TRUDEAU DIRECTIVE ON ABORTION MADE ME REALIZE WHAT A CONYROLFREAK HE THINKS HE IS. BYE BYE JUSTIN

    • Pro choice
      June 24, 2014 - 14:34

      At least we agree on something. People can be control freaks. JT wants to control how his party votes on abortion, and Catholics want to control women's bodies.

    • gmfcobourgon
      June 24, 2014 - 15:46

      So you will vote for the party that refuses to bring it up in the chamber but no for those who want to protect women's rights. Strange position to take but freedom of choice is yours.

    • Smitty77
      June 24, 2014 - 16:03

      Who is more of a control freak than the Pope?

    • Pete
      June 24, 2014 - 20:54

      It appears that Peter McKay supporters are here. Barefoot, pregnant, changing nappies... Think for yourself, don't let the church and the Tories think for you.

  • Fred
    June 24, 2014 - 13:27

    Lawerence is only out for himself, he just lost 7 votes in my family which he always had! Lost all respect for him!

  • TenaciousCeee
    June 24, 2014 - 12:01

    If this issue is enough to turn off people from supporting the Liberals than they can go hang out under that blue tent for all I care. As leader, Trudeau is reinforcing the rule of law and The Charter. Deal with it or go to another party. It was this type of old-school mentality that almost destroyed the party 15 years ago.

    • Portage & Main
      June 24, 2014 - 13:23

      Please show me the exact spot in the Charter where it guarantee the right to an abortion. Failing that, I would be happy to see a Supreme Court ruling upholding a right to abortion

    • Pro choice
      June 24, 2014 - 14:07

      No healthcare is explicitly guaranteed in the charter or the constitution. Section seven of the charter protects a persons autonomy and "right to life, liberty, and security of the person". Borowski v. Canada found that the unborn are not included in this protection. Trembley v. Daigle reiterated that a fetus is not considered a person. Not providing abortion services violates a woman's charter right to security of the person.

  • doris
    June 24, 2014 - 11:56

    I will take Harper any day rather than this kid Justin, who jerks the old faithful MPs around. Making one statement they can vote as democracy calls for, (grandfathered) AND THEN he makes and other decree, that nobody can be their own person, - nobody. It might not have mattered that he is a silver spoon kid, but he has shown himself to be spineless and erratic, not unlike his Mother. Poor Lawrence is caught in the cross hairs. Let us be honest, - not blinded, it will be a disaster for the country, if he was to become Prime Minister. Just like it has been a disaster for PEI as a whole (exempting of course people like Tex MacDonald, Brooke MacMillan, Ivan McArthur, the Murphys and the likes) to suffer with Robbie Ghiz.

    • Oh, Doris. You have no idea.
      June 24, 2014 - 12:40

      "He makes another decree, that nobody can be their own person" That is exactly the opposite of what Trudeau is standing for. The liberals are pro-choice, meaning they support women's ability to be their own person, and not have their bodies controlled by the government.

    • Tsk tsk
      June 24, 2014 - 13:08

      Like Harper hasn't been a disaster? The Tory trolls are having a field day with this but no matter how much nashing of teeth and wringing of hands- the Liberal Lawrence will survive this one. But Harper was on to something....we barely recognize Canada after his reign. Time for change.

    • bob from cardigan
      June 24, 2014 - 13:12

      right on doris. for some reason people think an unborn child should have no rights. just women carrying them. someone got to protect the unborn child if we pretned to be a civilized socity.

    • Allan Barry
      June 24, 2014 - 13:22

      You can nominate whoever you want and that person can hold whatever beliefs he wants - presumably the will be liberal views if he is running for the Liberal Party. The only thing Trudeau is saying is that if there is ever a free vote on the topic of abortion, members of the Liberal Party are expected to vote pro choice. If abortion is the only topic you care about then you should stop being a faithful liberal. When you become the leader of the Liberal Party then you can make changes as you see fit. However, if you actually care about broad liberal values, you will vote Liberal and you will double up your efforts to distribute condoms to high schools and donate money to adoption services. That would be a faithful Christian thing to do - actually solving a problem instead of moralizing over other peoples choices.

  • Faithful liberal and Catholic Christian
    June 24, 2014 - 11:50

    I have voted liberal all my life, but now I find myself in a difficult position. What bothers me is where does Trudeau get off telling us who can be nominated. Only those who fall into his way of thinking is acceptable. What has happened to our open liberal party. Lawrence has made his decision and now I will make mine. Sad time for democracy.

  • linda
    June 24, 2014 - 11:43

    loosing sight of the issue are? I am prochoice, but the issue here is democracy. If a majority in a Riding vote to send a liberal anti abortion person to Parliament, they should in a democracy be able to do that. Trudeau has taken that right away from us. He is not a democrat, but a dictator, and showing his immaturity and lack of intellect. As for Lawrence, to see a grown man behave this way is sad, - he should have said - stuff it, Justin. Now he is selling himself for the cushy salary and perks, and will leave the scene at some point as a disgraced man without morals and convictions for whom nobody can have respect..

    • Pro choice
      June 24, 2014 - 12:50

      The only immaturity and lack of intellect is from pro lifers in this comment section. No one, regardless of who they elect to parliament, has the right to override a persons right to bodily autonomy. Autonomy is a fundamental human right and to force a woman to give birth against her will and against her best interest is a violation of her basic human rights. A fetus does not have autonomy and is completely dependent on the mothers body for survival. It is within the scope of the right to autonomy for a woman to terminate a pregnancy if she wishes. You are welcome to hold anti choice views and be religious, but you cannot force your personal views on others. I have respect for people like Justin Trudeau who acknowledge women's rights, not for people like you support misogyny.

    • bob from cardigan
      June 24, 2014 - 13:14

      pro choicer, who protects the right of the unborn. you think this issue is so simple dont you. unborn children can survive earlier and earlier now outside the womb. murdering them does not make it right.

    • Pro choice
      June 24, 2014 - 13:29

      Bob, the arguments you are making are the same ones, albeit far less eloquently, that were made by anti choice advocates to the Supreme Court over and over... R v. Morgentaler, Trembley v. Daigle, Roe v. Wade. The arguments lost then and they lose now. A fetus is not a person.

  • Allan Barry
    June 24, 2014 - 11:33

    Clearly the Catholic Church is a political entity. So the Liberals and the NDP are pro-choice which means that the Catholic Church has aligned itself totally with the Conservative party. No one else is welcome in the Catholic church. That is self righteous elitism at its worst. I am pro-choice and I am also pro-life. If someone I know had an unwanted pregnancy I would do everything in my power to convince them to go through with the pregnancy and I would offer all the support I could to the child. I would go out of my way to offer support as would all Liberals and NDPers. When the conservatives and Catholics talk about murdering babies they are exposing their own ignorance of reality. They are in their own fantasy world. What is the Catholic church and the conservative party doing about preventing unwanted pregnancies? Are they freely promoting giving away condoms? Not likely. I suspect both of these regressive organizations would be morally horrified about distributing and promoting contraception devices. Instead they would be preaching abstinence - as if that is going to actually work. That will only work for people who are already morally convinced that sexuality is sinful outside of marriage. No intelligent person agrees that this is a realistic solution. When the catholic church and the conservative party openly and loudly declare their strong and unequivocal support for birth control and start increasing their funding to adoption centers and other post unwanted pregnancy institutions then they will have the attention of reasonable people. Until then they will wallow in their own ignorance and hypocrisy. Start becoming part of the solution and stop being the problem.

  • Ex Bay Supporter
    June 24, 2014 - 11:33

    Lawerance you are now a puppet and nothing more-time for you to retire.

  • Tax Time
    June 24, 2014 - 11:31

    If the RC Church wants to become political then maybe they should pay taxes on their estensive real estate. By the way was there public funding for the new St. Joachim's Hall.

    • Stratford resident
      June 24, 2014 - 16:01

      I agree. It's high time this organization gets its charitable status removed as its activities are more political than religious and in direct contravention of Canada Revenue Agency's policies (but just you watch... the Harperites will fight to uphold the good ol' RC church). I really fail to understand why the Government of Canada and the Government of PEI give this organization any standing whatsoever. And with all the sexual abuse scandals plaguing it in recent decades, why organizations like the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and RCMP and other police organizations and justice ministries have turned a blind eye to the child abuse caused by their employees, etc. And the bishops, archbishops and many of the vatican higher ups have been criminally complicit in helping to cover up the scandals. Why does the RC church care so much about controlling women by denying abortion and contraception when they can't even address the evil that lurks within? They have zero credibility on any issue whatsoever and it's past time to yank their charitable status and make them pay the going property and corporate tax rates.

  • Bill macleod
    June 24, 2014 - 11:27

    Its time to deside who you represent ,the liberal party or the people in your riding,don:t be dictated by a kid with no morals.

  • seriously...
    June 24, 2014 - 11:26

    who cares.... I can't believe this actually made the news. Never miss an opportunity to try to raise suspicion and gossip over something stupid...

  • Ex Bay Supporter
    June 24, 2014 - 10:57

    Lawerance you are now a puppet and nothing more-time for you to retire.

  • Good for them
    June 24, 2014 - 10:22

    Church has their own views whether you agree with them or not and they stuck to them. The bumbler is not allowed to think for himself which maybe a good thing if you ever met him. So he just changes his own personal views on a whim of another Trudeau. Paron the reference but GOOD GOD what is matter with you people to elect him. A puppy would be as effective.

    • Chris S
      June 24, 2014 - 11:10

      Personal whim? Hardly. Liberals voted pro-choice at the 2012 convention.

    • don
      June 24, 2014 - 11:38

      and the church is right. in the bible abortions is MURDER. check it out. but just think Lawerance you will be voted out or step down in disgrace as a 2 face.

    • Good for them
      June 24, 2014 - 13:14

      The whim was first they could do what their personal views were then on a whim they were told to tow the party line hence the whim put down to miscommunication. But thanks for your red reply of something that has nothing to do with anything. You should be a Senator.

    • Chris S
      June 24, 2014 - 13:22

      There was no whim. It was clear in the beginning that the exemption applied to nominations.

  • Woman in Chtown
    June 24, 2014 - 10:09

    So... he 'understands the PARTIES position on a woman's right to choose'. Translation = he thinks HE should be able to decide what a woman can and can't do. He's not pro - life. He's Anti women's rights. Be gone Lawrence, your time has past.

    • Male feminist
      June 24, 2014 - 10:28

      So leaving the decision of what a woman can do to her own body to the individual is anti women's rights??? I'd be interested to hear you're version of women's rights...

    • Johnny
      June 24, 2014 - 10:30

      You clearly need to revise your priorities in life.

    • Woman in Chtown
      June 24, 2014 - 12:39

      Yes - let me reprhase - he's saying he understands the PARTIES view, but that view is not his own. HE is against women having the right to choose but will vote that way b/c he is told to. So personally, he is against women's rights. And my priorities are straight. Let women decide what women do. Stay out of other peoples business.

    • Male feminist
      June 24, 2014 - 12:53

      I'm sorry, I misunderstood your original comment.

  • hollinm
    June 24, 2014 - 09:40

    There are consequences to being a hypocrite. Lawrence is now suffering for his hypocrisy. Allowing a kid who is 20 years younger with little life experience to dictate his morals is disgusting.

    • UPWESTER
      June 24, 2014 - 11:50

      Oh, so only older people (i.e. that is someone older than 50) can haves morals. How nice of you to point that out.. I guess Stephen Harper is now old enough to be moral and have the necessary life experience to qualify in your mind. And all those priests over 50 who abused boys, they have the necessary life experiences to make moral judgements as well. With your narrow and closed mind, I suppose you put yourself in that category also.

  • I don't get it
    June 24, 2014 - 09:01

    People people!! Don't you see the irony here??? The church is basically doing the same thing: "think like us; or we will not allow you in our circle." Tell me how is this any different than Trudeau's Pro-choice stance?

  • Billy
    June 24, 2014 - 08:52

    Well done and SO nice to see the true colours of the church. No wonder membership is made up of blue hair and geriatrics. You wonder why generations have taken advice from celibate men on morals.... Larry is a politician;he does it well and credit to him.

  • Paul
    June 24, 2014 - 08:38

    What do you expect if you treat Catholic and pro-lifers with contempt? Why would a Catholic church host a nomination meeting for an openly anti-Catholic party?

    • Just sayin
      June 24, 2014 - 10:25

      The liberals are pro freedom of choice, including the freedom of religion. So they are very pro catholic. What they are against is forcing your catholic views on the rest of the population. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy. Our government is in Ottawa, not Rome.

    • Chris S
      June 24, 2014 - 10:28

      What's anti-Catholic about getting out of people's way?

  • I Don't Know But Hope
    June 24, 2014 - 08:11

    I don't know but hope this action is remembered on election day . Sending Lawrence back to Ottawa is wrong . We are suppose to vote for someone to speak for us & our wishes . Voting for Lawrence is just voting for Justin period . Lawrence hasn't what is required for that job . A little bit of pride at least . He, because of his elected record could have held his ground with this kid leader . I'm so ashamed of him , not because of the way he votes but because of his lack of backbone & manhood . I'll cringe every time I see him in the future . He sure as hell let me down & hope I'm not alone . I'll vote for anyone now except Lawrence .

  • I am pleased
    June 24, 2014 - 07:45

    I am pleased the nomination of MacAulay did not take place in the church hall That booking must have been done deliberately by the Liberals as it would have looked like the church didn't mind what Trudeau / MacAulay were for. No matter how your Liberals spin it for you MacAulay, you now look like an old mat under Trudeau's feet & you know it. You are not there for your constituents but for yourself & your true colors have now come forward.

  • Chris S
    June 24, 2014 - 07:44

    Thank you for respecting and representing the democratic will of the party on this. Liberals from accross Canada, including Cardigan, got together at policy convention and voted for a womans right to choose. It is nice to know that the MP for Cardigan isn't going to do an end run around the democratic policy process.

  • WhoWouldHaveThunk
    June 24, 2014 - 07:29

    And people say Harper is a dictator. Nothing compared to Trudeau!

    • Chris S
      June 24, 2014 - 08:30

      Liberals voted in favor of Pro-Choice in the 2012 policy convention. Liberals voted to give the party leader the discretion to move party policy to caucus policy. Liberals elected Justin to that leadership position. Lawrence choses to run under the Liberal banner. Liberals who elected him chose to hold membership cards. None of this is dictatorial.

  • Brenda MacDonald
    June 24, 2014 - 07:28

    While the Hall committee might be upset with Mr MacAulay for his current position (which is supporting the law of the land), I thank him for representing mine.

    • Curious
      June 25, 2014 - 15:13

      One is of course left to wonder if any members of the Hall Committee or the Parish Council might be prominent political folks who enjoy causing some problems for a Liberal MP???? It's PEI after all!

  • Johnny Knows
    June 24, 2014 - 07:10

    I guess not all are welcome at church. Prime example of why the younger generation no longer want to go. Sad.

    • lou lou annie
      June 24, 2014 - 08:56

      Yes Johnny, and maybe if the church did not see things the way they do, you would not be around to disagree with it..........Blame someone tho, its the mature thing to do instead of taking ownership.

  • Donnie
    June 24, 2014 - 06:23

    Good. Well past time to separate "church and state". Let them impose their morality on their parishioners and not on the people who don't believe in their dogma. The few shouldn't be able to make rules for the majority to begin with and the Right to (Dictate) Life group do not speak for the majority of Canadians, as they will find out in 2015.

  • voter
    June 24, 2014 - 05:53

    yes ,larry, the family compact, the pay, the pension, the party, justin, and all the liberal puppets and pawns are more important than the church

  • Billy
    June 24, 2014 - 05:32

    Well done and SO nice to see the true colours of the church. No wonder membership is made up of blue hair and geriatrics. You wonder why generations have taken advice from celibate men on morals.... Larry is a politician;he does it well and credit to him.

  • Guardian Reader
    June 24, 2014 - 05:29

    Mr Macaulay you have stooped to a new low your turned your back on your church your 30 year vow to the electorate and most of all your family you put Liberal party before all else what a sad day for you and Cardigan people that held you in such high esteen.

    • Huh
      June 24, 2014 - 11:41

      How is being Pro-life -turning your back on the church? Please explain.

  • Chester L
    June 24, 2014 - 04:07

    Well good for the Parish for sticking to their guns on Anti Abortion.......Lawrence changed his tune and his position , he is the consummate Politician on this one " never taking any blame only looking to deflect from off himself to some one or some thing" He should resign and take his " paltry pension " and live with this position....some of us know the truth in this issue...........no backbone, a few years he sought out his Riding members in support of Anti Abortion and I for one was in support and stood out from the crowd with his stance..........shameful.:(

  • JonLennon
    June 24, 2014 - 02:19

    For years Religion and Politics were very much alike as most people were bought up and told to vote a certain way and to believe in a certain Religion. But now a days Religion has no place in politics .. as it is slowly making its way out of most educated peoples lives...The more we look at history and science the more we move away form it.. All you have to do is look at the declining congregations in most Churches. Times change either change with them or get out of the way

    • bob from cardigan
      June 24, 2014 - 10:35

      well its good than they didnt do there thing at the religious facility and instead at a drinking hall. JT is a dicator. Lawrence is his lap dog.

  • don
    June 23, 2014 - 22:23

    In reference to pregnant women, the term "with child" occurs twenty-six times in the Bible. The term "with fetus" never occurs once. Abortion Is An Act of Murder. To further confirm the fact that God views the unborn child as a person, please consider Exodus 21:22-23: Proverbs 6:16-17 says that God HATES those who shed innocent blood! Deuteronomy 27:25 says,"Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person.. Now two face i hope all your voters reads this and lets you know come voting day what they think. and i hope and pray that when you vote to bow down to justen that you see a face of every child that is murdered. and to think you are one that will go to God place and hold your head high shame on you.

    • Just saying
      June 24, 2014 - 09:26

      What's the bible?

    • Jeezus
      June 24, 2014 - 09:28

      A fetus isn't a person, in law or the Bible. Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Genesis 2:7

    • Protect the Dust
      June 24, 2014 - 10:04

      Obviously, the above mentioned "dust" is the actual person and should be protected at any cost. People making Swiffer Duster and similar unholy products should all be locked up.

    • THINK THINK THINK
      June 24, 2014 - 11:03

      Don, do you think of everything you have done that you need forgiveness for when you spew this stuff? If you were to commit to financially supporting all of these children that would have been born into miserable circumstances. then I would agree with your right to cast judgements. But as usually is the case, that cost should be left up to everyone else. It's not your job. Talk about two faced.

  • Peter Llewellyn
    June 23, 2014 - 22:14

    Time to think about getting out with your integrity intact Lawrence,

    • don
      June 24, 2014 - 00:18

      sorry he lost that when he said one thing then after his master spoke he turned and went 2 faced.

  • don
    June 23, 2014 - 22:04

    no luck will fallow this party nor it's members for agreeing to murder unborn children, they are helpless. MacAulay you are being and showing your true colors and that is yellow. you are being a good puppet to your master. i hope you see and read the 6th commandment. and if you do not understand it ask God to tell you. now i'm waiting for ghiz to say the same thing as he must bow down to his leader. and vote o kill unborn children. maybe a few parents should have done the same to a few cowards in the liberals.

    • The Observer from Stratford
      June 24, 2014 - 08:53

      Ghiz is a provincial politician. He has almost nothing to do with Trudeau and the federal Liberals. Justin has no power to force Ghiz to move one way or the other. You sound like one of those Harper haters who is always looking for a way to inject an anti-Harper rant into any subject. In your case you inject Ghiz instead but in both cases the reference is irrelevant.