Pro-Life Hospice Group Launches ‘Do Not Euthanize’ Registry to Protect Canadians Patients
(LifeSiteNews) –– One of Canada’s only fully pro-life hospices, the Delta Hospice Society (DHS), has launched a new Do Not Euthanize (DNE) National Registry that it says will help “defend” vulnerable citizens’ lives from “premature death by euthanasia.”
Angelina Ireland, executive director of the DHS, told LifeSiteNews that the new DNE National Registry is live as of May 1, 2024, with the goal being to have everyone who has already signed, or will sign, a DNE, added to the registry.
“Over the last couple of years, we have given out thousands of our Do Not Euthanize Advance Directives across Canada. We are making the wishes of our people known and putting them into legally binding, provincially specific advance directives,” Ireland said to LifeSiteNews.
“Our DNEs put into writing that our people have no interest in being executed by the state via ‘MAiD,’ we want healthcare – we will not be euthanized!”
Ireland told LifeSiteNews that starting May 1, 2024, the option to join the National Registry and obtain a wallet-sized card will be available to order on the DHS’s website, www.deltahospicesociety.org.
“People just need to advise us that they have a signed DNE, and we will send them a customized, wallet-size card with their name and their National Registry number. If they don’t have a DNE yet, they can order both at once,” said Ireland.
“During a medical emergency, if people are not able to communicate their wishes, their DNE card will speak for their lives.”
Ireland said healthcare professionals can call the DHS at their main number, which is listed on the card, “and we will tell them, Do not Euthanize, our people require healthcare!”
“We will keep this precious, unique DNE Registry of people who stand to defend their lives from premature death by euthanasia, safely within our secure national database,” said Ireland.
Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), as it has been coined by the Liberal federal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, became legal in 2016. In February, after pushback from pro-life, medical, and mental health groups, as well as most of Canada’s provinces, the federal government under Trudeau delayed its planned expansion of MAiD to those suffering solely from mental illness to 2027.
The number of Canadians killed by lethal injection since 2016 stands at close to around 65,000, with an estimated 16,000 deaths in 2023 alone, and many fear that because the official statistics are manipulated the number may be even higher.
Indeed, a recent Statistics Canada update admitted to excluding euthanasia from its death totals despite it being the sixth-highest cause of mortality in the nation.
To combat both the rise in MAiD as well as the state seeming to push it on the vulnerable, Ireland noted how its new National Registry offers “another layer of protection for the vulnerable provided by the Delta Hospice Society to safeguard against this national disgrace called ‘MAiD,” which she said is “a predatory regime against the Canadian people.”
The DHS’s DNE was officially launched in the summer of 2022. Ireland said at the time that it was a “proactive response to those who think that our people have no right to medical treatment or to life itself.” The DHS also has a Do Not Euthanize’ Advance Directive (DNE) program, which is a legal document protecting people against attempts to have their lives “terminated unnaturally” through lethal injection.
To combat the vulnerable falling victim to MAiD against their will, the DHS last year launched a national “Guardian Angels” initiative. This program aims to help ill and vulnerable Canadians stuck in the healthcare system have a personal advocate on their side to champion the “sanctity of life” over euthanasia.
Send an urgent message to Canadian legislators urging them to stop expanding assisted suicide
BREAKING: The Civil War Has Begun— Discover The Globalist Kill List
Transmania: How ‘Woman’ Became a Transgressive Word
The publication of this pink-and-blue book was like a bombshell in France: two women, Dora Moutot and Marguerite Stern, who come from militant leftist feminism, chose to cross the Rubicon and tackle the evils of transgender ideology in all its forms. It was a daring and more than courageous gamble. Courageous, because today, the ideology of transgenderism—for it is indeed one, as the authors set out to demonstrate with conviction—exerts a terror on the mind worthy of Stalinism in its heyday, minus the physical killings. But in the age of social networking and e-reputation, there are symbolic killings that can be extremely violent.
This essay is the fruit of a long road to Damascus for two women who were never predestined to cross over to the ‘dark side’ of the force. Marguerite Stern is a former FEMEN activist, and not so long ago, she was showing off her bare breasts in Notre Dame de Paris. Dora Moutot is the former deputy editor-in-chief of Konbini, a trendy online medium concentrating on what a politically correct way of life should be.
Both convinced and committed feminists, they took the road of conversion when they realised that, in the name of transsexual rights, they were no longer allowed to defend this sympathetic and disappearing population: women. Singled out and stigmatised as TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists), like J.K. Rowling and so many others, because they refused to accept that a man force-fed hormones and surgery could become a woman, they set out to trace the thread of this Soviet-style madness that would have us see black where we see white (or vice versa).
The result of this fascinating investigation is almost 400 pages long.
The book is not a pamphlet or an easy, vindictive rant, but an in-depth study—with all due respect to those who attack it, and who generally haven’t bothered to open it. As an academic, I was even pleased to find a respectable number of footnotes, without which no book could claim to be ‘serious.’
As a red thread running through their demonstration, Moutot and Stern invite us to follow, with a certain amount of humour, the tragicomic journey of Robert, who chose one day to become Catherine—a fictional figure who gives a concrete face to the delusions of transgenderism. This humorous counterpoint is useful for adding a little levity to a gripping read about a terrifying reality.
Methodically, they go into successive depths on the mechanisms of transgender ideology.
The first part looks at the process of transition or ‘sexual reassignment’ and its logic. With rare patience and pedagogy, Stern and Moutot explain what can lead a married man with a family to believe that he is a woman: the byways he takes, through addictions and personal cracks; the time spent on social media and the messages of enrolment they deliver; the underlying psychiatric problems—for there are many of them.
We can sometimes get lost in the subtleties of the matter: is a transfeminine man, i.e., a man who has become a woman, who loves men but is trying to become a woman, still a homosexual? But can a transfeminine man, i.e., a man who has become a woman, who loves women but is trying to become a woman, be considered a lesbian? I’m sure you had never suspected the existence of such dilemmas.
Confucius maintained that “we must correct our denominations.” “The perversion of the city begins with the fraud of words,” added Plato. We will be grateful to Stern and Moutot for their constant efforts to combat the fraud of language. It is this passion for reality, against all odds, that has led to them being targeted by trans activists—who, in the pursuit of their vindictiveness, are definitely proving the truth of what the authors say: the existence of a new thought police force tracking down gender crimes. No, a man who tries to become a woman never becomes a woman. Stern and Moutot defend the expressions ‘transfeminine man’ or ‘transmasculine woman’, which have the merit of knowing who or what they are talking about.
The accusation of ‘transphobia’ is thrown in their faces all day long. They are greeted with leaflets and tags hammering out ready-made slogans like ‘transphobia kills’. But the touching pages in which the authors recount their encounters with trans people who have been wounded by life are full of a deep compassion that prevents them from being seen as hateful people.
The reader learns a great many fascinating things in this dense essay, which challenges the preconceived ideas that are peddled by conventional wisdom. We discover, for example, that far more women make the transition than the other way around. They reject and despise their female bodies, proof of the terrible malaise of our supposedly liberated society with regard to true femininity. We learn that puberty blockers don’t block anything at all, but rather destroy an in-growth body, because biologically, hormones control much more than just the sexual organs in the human body.
After reading these dense, hard-hitting chapters, you’ll want to compile a little vademecum of irrefutable arguments to be brandished at dinner parties—and there are plenty of them.
Taking hormones will never turn a male-born athlete into a woman: independently of our hormones, more than 3,000 genes contribute to the difference in musculature between the sexes.
‘Gender dysphoria’ is not just a matter of hormone treatment. 75% of children who undergo a sexual transition suffer serious psychological problems.
In France, the cost of a transition for a man trying to become a woman is almost €120,000, entirely covered by the public purse under the heading of ‘long-term illnesses’. But describing transgenderism as an illness can lead you to the court. And so on.
The second part sets out to describe what the authors call the transgender ‘crusade’: an all-out assault on education, medicine, marketing, and laws. There is almost nothing to stop it. The obsession with the danger of transphobia, brandished like a banner, would almost make racism seem an authorised opinion today. ‘Transmania’ is an international enterprise with powerful relays, and a major role is played by the United States in this great game of perversion of reality. The good souls can cry conspiracy: nothing that Stern and Moutot put forward is not justified; everything is sourced and supported.
The third part—and you’ll appreciate how the stakes have been progressively raised—asks the fundamental question, the answer to which cannot yet be definitive: why? Why has transgender ideology become so pervasive in our societies that it exerts a form of mental terror on individuals, who feel obliged to acquiesce to a powerfully altered version of reality?
The answer is manifold. It has to do with a demiurgic philosophy that predates transgender madness by many years—the eternal temptation of the creature wishing to replace the creator and shape life to its own liking. Powerful commercial, pharmaceutical, and political lobbies obviously have an interest in this. They alone can’t explain the movement. The authors of this book draw up a convincing outline of the horizon of transgenderism, i.e., transhumanism. It responds to the same temptation to recreate reality in order to free it from material vicissitudes—to the point of imagining beings who could become pure spirits and will use computers to put an end to their necessarily limited corporeal existence. In the end, we’re not far from a form of technological Catharism whose ultimate fulfilment will come when man and woman, creatures of God and his infinite love, cease to exist. The religious argument is absent from the reflection—it was not the purpose of the essay—but the doors are opened by the authors with sufficient finesse to allow it to slip through.
The revelations contained in the book may not be entirely unfamiliar to readers of The European Conservative, which has been tackling the subject of transitions and detransitions for many months now in its columns, following the scandal at the Tavistock clinic, and drawing up an updated inventory of policies on puberty blockers in Europe. But they have the merit of being brought together in one place, in a way that is both precise, detailed, and accessible to the average person. It is particularly recommended reading for parents so that they can detect, before it’s too late, the signs of recruitment to which their children may be subjected via social media such as TikTok or Discord, which recruit new young victims relentlessly.
Since its release, a manner of censorship has been unleashed in France to make the book inaccessible. Booksellers hide it, try to place it at the top of the shelves, or simply refuse to order it. The mayor of Paris banned posters promoting it from the streets. But there are days when Amazon, fortunately, or—even better—ordering directly from the publisher, can get around the pitfalls. As a result, the book is rocketing to the top of the sales charts, despite more or less discrete attempts at social auto-da-fé.
All that’s missing now is an English-language publisher to bring the fruit of Dora Moutot and Marguerite Stern’s salutary work to a wider audience.
BREAKING: The Civil War Has Begun— Discover The Globalist Kill List
Liberals Three Times More Biased about Their Opponents than Conservatives, New Study Claims
Liberals are three times more biased when evaluating their opponents than conservatives are, according to a new study in the Journal of Social Psychology. This runs totally counter to the widespread belief that conservatives are less open-minded and more prejudiced than liberals.
The researchers behind the study wanted to test the popular hypothesis that conservatives are more prone to prejudice and have a greater inclination to authoritarianism than liberals.
“It has become clear that the ideological divide in the United States is growing and that people are becoming more polarized in their beliefs,” explains study author Robert D. Ridge, an associate professor of psychology at Brigham Young University.
“Ideological asymmetry is the notion that conservatives are more prejudicial than liberals, but the worldview conflict hypothesis suggests that conservatives and liberals can be equally prejudiced toward those with different worldviews and values.”
“I wanted to pit these two theories against each other to see who would be more likely to aggress indirectly against a person who held an ideology different than theirs. I wanted to see if simply posting support on social media for a conservative or liberal position would be sufficient to elicit indirect aggression from a person with a different ideology in a domain that is completely unrelated to politics.”
The researchers created an experiment where participants were asked to evaluate political memes shared on social media. They were told the memes had been shared by candidates looking for a job. Participants did not know that they were being evaluated for their own political biases.
In particular, the researchers wanted to see how the content of the memes affected the perception of the person who shared them. That included the extent to which the perceiver felt aggressive feelings towards the person who shared the memes based on their implied political beliefs.
As expected, conservatives and liberals both assessed content that aligned with their own beliefs favourably, and content that didn’t, negatively.
However, the different in assessments was much greater among liberals, who assessed conservatives three times as harshly as conservatives assessed liberals.
“I was very surprised that the level of liberal bias against conservatives was nearly three times greater than was conservative bias toward liberals,” Ridge Added.
“This is directly the opposite of what ideological asymmetry would predict. I was also surprised that given this result, liberal participants claimed that conservatives were much more prejudiced than liberals, whereas conservatives did not attribute any more prejudice to liberals than to conservatives. This is contrary to much popular opinion about liberals and conservatives in popular media and in the empirical literature.”
The researchers have already conducted further research on the subject, which will be published soon. They’ve discovered that liberals are more likely to view subtle clues to conservative affiliation in job resumés as an excuse to “torpedo” an individual’s chances of getting a job.
BREAKING: The Civil War Has Begun— Discover The Globalist Kill List
UK School Reports Parents Who Refused to Affirm Daughter’s ‘Transgender’ Identity to Child Protective Services
(LifeSiteNews) — Last year I reviewed Parents with Inconvenient Truths About Trans: Tales from the Home Front in the Fight to Save Our Kids for First Things. It is a truly horrifying book, especially for a parent. The book was filled with story after story of heartbroken, desperate mothers and fathers discovering that their child identified as transgender – and then, that school staff, clinicians, medical staff, and even other parents were all arrayed against them in their attempts to save their children from the irreversible damage of cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers, and sex change surgeries.
Most of the parents writing their stories chose to remain anonymous in order to maintain their relationships with their children, and to avoid being targeted by trans activists. Some parental nightmares, however, show up in the papers. A recent example was just published in the Telegraph. A top private school in Edinburgh, Scotland – George Watson’s College – called social services in December of 2020 after the parents objected to the transitioning of their daughter and instead asked that the school practice the “watchful waiting” approach. The parents had come to this conclusion after consulting a psychologist.
READ: Beware of the invasive, dangerous ‘Gender Unicorn’ used by LGBT activists for indoctrination
“’Watchful waiting’ is an approach in which a child’s view of their gender is closely observed but without social or medical intervention,” the Telegraph noted. “Evidence suggests that many children with gender issues will revert to identifying as a member of their biological sex as they become older.” That is true for over 80 percent of children who struggle with their sex, which is why “watchful waiting” is the approach advocated by the recent Cass Review. Teachers at the school disagreed and stated, instead, that it was important to “affirm” the girl’s supposed transgender identity in order to respect “his [sic] wishes to use masculine pronouns” and to put the girl’s “best interest and wellbeing at heart.”
George Watson’s College, like many other private schools, had been infiltrated by LGBT groups – in this case, the radical trans “charity” LGBT Youth Scotland (LGBTYS), which “requires schools to rewrite policies and send teachers on its training courses in April 2019,” after which each school is given a gold, silver, or bronze ranking “denoting their LGBTQ+ friendliness as part of the charter scheme that is backed by the SNP government.” According to the girl’s mother – who remained unnamed – the school preferred to listen to the activist LGBTYS rather than clinical advice from a psychologist.
The girl decided to identify as transgender after joining an LGBT club, which is also part of the LGBTYS mission in schools. “We were repeatedly lied to by the school,” the mother told the Telegraph.
I feel that our child was just seen as a little guinea pig by the school and LGBT Youth Scotland. The school policies, which LGBT Youth Scotland helped write, are set up to ensure parents are deliberately misled. We had two expert opinions, including from a specialist in gender, not to challenge our child but that adults should basically turn a blind eye, and not affirm her. But these experts were repeatedly dismissed by the teachers. They literally said to us on one occasion that LGBT Youth Scotland were the experts in this.
“Rather than engaging meaningfully with us, we were referred to social services by the school and investigated,” she continued. “Fortunately, they were sensible and it went no further, but the fact that this was deemed appropriate in the first place is outrageous.” Records obtained by the mother through a Subject Access Request indicate that the school had, against her wishes, without her knowledge, and against the advice of clinicians, changed her daughter’s name and switched her pronouns to “he/him,” noting that “mum and dad absolutely do not agree with the ‘positive affirmation approach’ that the school is endorsing.”
According to the Telegraph: “Correspondence with social services states the child was ‘anxious now that social work have been contacted’ and asked for her to be ‘reassured’ that social workers were ‘part of a support network.’” In response to the story, a spokesperson for George Watson’s College insisted that they “have always worked collaboratively with parents and apologise to those involved in this case for any distress caused by what are difficult and challenging circumstances. Every school in Scotland has to weigh up parental engagement with the rights of children, with transitioning being a fluid and ongoing challenge for all.”
Despite this harrowing ordeal – it must have been a terrifying experience to discover that you have been reported to social services for trying to protect your child – these parents and their daughter were lucky. In plenty of other cases, the children have been removed from the parental home.
BREAKING: The Civil War Has Begun— Discover The Globalist Kill List
On Guard And Brace For Impact as The New World Order Escalates Tyranny to The Next Level
During his Sunday show Alex Jones warned conservative public figures that they must go public against the globalist New World Order depopulation endgame.
“We are about to go into a slippery slope that we’re already on, but I mean over the edge of it,” Jones said.
Don’t miss:
BREAKING: The Civil War Has Begun— Discover The Globalist Kill List
Democrat Leader Warns US Troops Could Enter Ukraine Conflict
The US may have to deploy troops to Ukraine if Kiev suffers a complete collapse against Russia, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has said.
In an interview with CBS News released on Sunday, the senior Democratic lawmaker stressed the urgency of sending military aid to Ukraine, claiming that if those efforts failed, the US would potentially have to intervene directly in the conflict.
“We can’t let Ukraine fall because if it does, then there’s a significant likelihood that America will have to get into the conflict – not simply with our money, but with our servicewomen and our servicemen,” Jeffries said.
This stance, however, contradicts the long-standing policy of US President Joe Biden, who reiterated last month that he was “determined” not to send American troops to Ukraine. He noted that Kiev had so far not requested direct military intervention from Washington, expressing the belief that it could win the conflict with Russia if the US “stand[s] with Ukraine and provide[s] the weapons it needs to defend itself.”
Read more Ukraine could request Western military intervention – MP
Meanwhile, Jeffries claimed that US efforts to support Ukraine, including pushing a new $61 billion assistance package through Congress, had been stymied by what he called a “pro-Putin faction”within the Republican Party.
He singled out Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has called for funds to be used for domestic needs, rather than sent to Ukraine. Greene has insisted she “does not have any sympathy for… Russia” and that she is “only loyal to a single country: the United States of America.”
Jeffries’ comments about possible US intervention come after French President Emmanuel Macron refused to rule out sending Western troops to Ukraine. Last week, he suggested that Western nations “would legitimately have to ask [them]selves”whether they should deploy their militaries to the embattled country “if the Russians were to break through the front lines, [and] if there were a Ukrainian request.” Macron has further insisted that rhetoric of “strategic ambiguity” could project strength and deter Russia.
In response, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov suggested on Sunday that the French leader was “breathing caveman Russophobia” in the hope of using this sentiment to become the de-facto leader of the EU.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned in late February that the deployment of NATO troops to Ukraine would make a direct conflict between Russia and the US-led military bloc “inevitable.”
In the meantime, the Russian military has reported steady progress on the battlefield, capturing several settlements in Donbass in recent weeks.
BREAKING: The Civil War Has Begun— Discover The Globalist Kill List