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!
At the outset of his message, the prophet proclaims this simple command, which must surely be the very beginning of any moral life.
Before any moral progress can be made, there must be a turning aside from wrongdoing, or at least from the most deadly and serious sins. Prior to any attempt to help others, more important than any intercessory prayer or fasting or sacrifice, one must stop doing harm. In order to promote and defend life, one must first stop murdering.
The pro-life strike in not any more ambitious than that. A simple equation. Abortion is murder, a heinous crime. To fund it is to partake in the crime. In order to pray, fast, vote, write letters, sign petitions, display signs, hold seminars, and all the other worthy pro-life activities - before all that, we must first stop partaking in the crime ourselves.
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.
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.
