I find that quote used often on pro-life websites to equate abortion with violence. However, it doesn’t ring true for most of these sites, that all too often support war and even the death penalty. Clear evidence of a nation using violence to get what it wants.

In fact, if I were to march in one of their “pro-life” demonstrations, carrying a sign with a picture of an Afghan child who was the victim of war, I would probably be called a “Taliban dupe”. Or if my sign had the photo of a Palestinian child, who was an innocent victim of war, I would probably be accused of anti-Semitism and not loving Israel enough.

I might even be whacked with one of their signs suggesting that abortion is the “new Holocaust”, complete with the most horrendous images.

Because there are several quotes also attributed to Mother Teresa, that I never see on a “pro-life” site, including this one:

As also mentioned, The Globe and Mail gave the Campaign Life Coalition march some coverage, as did:

The Ottawa Citizen Thousands hit Hill to protest against abortion.

Lifesite News  covers the Campaign for Life march every year and their crowd estimates are usually what are passed on.

Salt and Light Television is busy with coverage of the Pope’s Middle East visit, but made it to Ottawa and blogged they’ll have more later.

The Eye of the Engima is written by a Catholic high school student who, like many Catholic high school kids, get bused in for a field day.

Dies Irae, another Catholic blogger, attended. And there is more below the fold…

Catholic Archbishop Terrence Prendergast also blogged about his day, he’s a bit more chatty since he is responsible for his fellow Archbishops who fly in and for hospitality to various Knights of Columbus leaders. 
Special masses are held in Ottawa cathedrals prior to the crowd hitting Ottawa streets.
Interdenominational prayer services were hosted in Ottawa by the Canadian Reformed Church and St. George, a  schismatic Anglican Church (ANiC).  

Antonia Zervisia  blogged at The Toronto Star, giving background.

Big Blue Wave (Suzanne Fortin, a former Christian Heritage Party candidate) posted some pictures.

Religious Right Alert got mentioned at Equipping Christians for the Public Square. Tim Bloedow, former administrative assistant for the Pro-Life Caucus and former Christian Heritage Party candidate took exception to this post: Finding the Pro-Life Caucus on Parliament Hill , where the question is raised about what Members of Parliament are part of the caucus, saying it was a McCarthyite article.
Given we are discussing  Canadian MPs, a Canadian name might have lent the ECPC question some credibility. 

MP Rod Bruinooge released the annual pr from the March media conference this year suggesting freedom of speech of anti-abortion groups was under threat, saying there was a ”disturbing trend of intolerance towards the pro-life point of view .” Examples are not given other than LifeCanada’s billboard campaign.

Unions, campuses, students and advertisers are named as opponents and the usual ”Polls consistently show that a majority of Canadians do not support Canada’s unrestricted tax-payer funded abortion regime” is again trotted out. That might be Mr. Bruinrooge’s brothers polling firm, hard to say, facts are in short supply in this pr.  

SoCon or Bust  headlined Mr. Bruinrooges press release: Pro-life speech being suppressed by pro-life facists.

The site administrator for Equipping Christians for the Public Square is genuinely upset Canadians want to know what elected MP’s are up to, and responded in an unfortunate tone to the idea that even pro-life Canadians might want to know which elected officials identify with this secret caucus:

 (click on the screenshot on the left to read from orginal source)

Would it not be in the best interest of all Canadian voters to know what secret caucuses their MP’s are participating in?
Just out of curiousity,  how many secret parliament caucuses hand out press releases once a year?

It’s the start of a long weekend in Canada, I didn’t see any other blogs mentioning the march,  did a very quick check of evangelical religious sites and blogs.

As for march attendees, The Ottawa Citizen says Jim Hughes of Campaign Life Coalition estimated about 10 thousand people braved the rain, Lifesite says 12 thousand.  Archbishop Prendergast wrote The Knights of Columbus managed to come out in strength this year.  Ottawa City Police don’t have estimated crowd numbers online.

It’s not partisan. It doesn’t have a website. There is a chairman – normally two – and possibly even an independent staff of assistants. It’s been operating on Parliament Hill for the last decade, maybe more, and there still hasn’t been a public listing of its members.

The “it” I’m referring to is the Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus, a theoretically non-partisan (though mostly Conservative, with a Liberal minority and pretty much no one from the other parties) group of MPs who are pro-life and would support reconsidering the current lack of national laws banning or restricting abortions. Once in a while the group pops up and garners a couple of headlines, but for the most part, it toils in obscurity. Those members who achieve political success, like Jason Kenney, probably had to sever their ties to the Caucus on their way up the ladder.

The encouraging thing about that is that it suggests, at least for the time being, that the anti-choice movement is having minimal success. Its representatives on the hill can’t even operate in the open, let alone put up legislation beyond a few disturbing fringe bills like Epp’s “murder of the unborn” law last year. This despite the fact that Lloyd Mackey, at least, believes our current prime minister might even be a former member of the Caucus. So, what do we actually know about this group?

The Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus seems to operate in the shadows as a sort of open secret organization. After chairman Rod Bruinooge’s inflammatory “kidneys outrank fetuses” op-ed was published last December (h/t Dammit Janet, Unrepentant Old Hippie), Ignatieff’s spokesperson refused to answer whether he would permit Liberal MPs to sit in the Pro-Life Caucus, and even suggested the group might not exist. This was, as socon blogger Big Blue Wave immediately pointed out, probably a lie: there’s no way the Liberal leadership wouldn’t know about the caucus. But no membership list was forthcoming, either. Bouquets of Gray expressed some well-deserved disapproval:

A secret AA chapter? Fine. A quilting klatch? No problem. A Dungeon-and-dragons cell? Whatever. MPs have a right to keeping their personal lives personal. But Bruinooge’s caucus advocates a change to public policy, and as such it should be operating out in the open.

Indeed, it is rather surprising that they do not want to operate in the open, because they can hardly hope to change public policy otherwise. If they are not going to argue their case in public, how do they expect to persuade anyone? win any votes? pass any laws?

Personally, I find it particularly bizarre that the group operates in secret and doesn’t get called on this. Its leaders claim this is because MPs who are members fear retaliation from their party leaders and from the public. The first I can understand. Maybe. But the second? If it’s something so seriously unpopular that you have to do it in secret, then as an elected representative you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. We wouldn’t stand for such convenient cynicism in other issue areas. Why should we on this one?

In honour of next month’s swiftly approaching March for Life parade, put on by the Campaign Life Coalition (a close ally of the Pro-Life Caucus), I intend to dig a little deeper into the mystery of the caucus. This is the sort of occasion when bloggers like myself just can’t match the resources of the declining mainstream media. I’m sure a few well-connected members of the press gallery could find out what I’m looking for in a single afternoon. I wish they’d do their jobs instead of leaving it to people like me and Unrepentant Old Hippie. Nevertheless, she called on bloggers to “ferret them out,” and that’s what I’m going to do.

The first Pro-Life Caucus emerged in the 1980s, during the first debate over abortion surrounding the Morgentaler decision in 1988. It collapsed in 1991 during debate over the Mulroney government’s failed Bill C-43. In 1998, Campaign Life Coalition president Jim Hughes played an unknown role in bringing together chairpersons for a new Caucus: Progressive Conservative Elsie Wayne, Liberal Tom Wappel, and then-rookie, now-immigration minister Jason Kenney, whose reactionary views at the time are probably best expressed by this article from his San Francisco Catholic university’s newspaper.

Tim Bloedow, then a Campaign Life lobbyist and writer for its paper The Interim, remarked that his group planned to step back and “work more behind the scenes” in the work of the new caucus. These intimate connections to Campaign Life may remain in place, though it is unclear. CLC is certainly an active defender of the Caucus; it fell to Mary Ellen Douglas to defend the group’s secrecy in December 2008. For his work in this regard, president Hughes was given a Catholic Civil Rights League award in 2007.

Reflecting its close connections with Campaign Life, the most significant event for the Caucus appears to be the annual March for Life demonstration, during which its chairs – and, from time to time, a few members – hold a special press conference highlighting an issue related to abortion. In 2003, the trio of co-chairs (Elsie Wayne, Paul Steckle and Maurice Vellacott) demanded the outlawing of embryonic stem cell research.

In 2005, Vellacott and Steckle suggested that an unknown but enormous number of women were being forced into abortions by abusive partners. The next year, they argued that abortion causes breast cancer, backed by American surgeon Angela Lanfranchi. Vellacott later added that the Canadian Cancer Society was refusing to study this link because it was funded by pharmaceutical companies and therefore did not genuinely want to prevent cancer. In 2007, they were criticizing sex-selective abortions, using research supplied by Andrea Mrozek of the Focus on the Family Canada-funded think tank, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada. In none of these cases have firm statistics on the alleged Canadian “violence” been presented. In their last conference together, in 2008, Steckle and Vellacott brought in Alveda King to speak on abortion as a civil rights issue (fetus civil rights, not women’s civil rights, naturally).

While scientifically dubious, these sessions are arguably less provocative than the comments some Caucus members come out with in their speeches to the annual March – Cheryl Gallant, for example, once notoriously claimed that abortions in Canada were “absolutely no different” than beheadings of Western journalists by terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Other than being a clearinghouse for information and a hosting service for pro-life speakers, it’s unclear what function the Caucus currently serves, however. Information on the website of Conservative MP Gerry Breitkreuz implies that in 2002 the Caucus canvassed all thirteen provincial and territorial governments, asking whether they had officially defined “medically necessary” abortions. That was followed in 2003 by a letter to health minister Anne McLellan “on the topic of medically necessary abortions.” Given Breitkreuz’s comments at the end of the page, the letter probably argued that public funding for abortions should be withdrawn in the absence of a definition of medical necessity.

The merger of the Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties reduced the number of chairs of the Caucus from three to two – though according to Lloyd Mackey, the caucus did consider naming a third from the New Democratic Party, Bev Dejarlais, which would suggest that at least at that point there were NDP members of the caucus. In fact, several writers, like Kady O’Malley, believed that longstanding NDP MP and United Church minister Bill Blaikie was a member of the Caucus.

In 2008, Vellacott stepped down and was replaced by Winnipeg Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge. Bruinooge linked his pro-life stance to his aboriginal heritage, and was welcomed warmly by the Canada Family Action Coalition, the Association for Reformed Political Action and the Campaign Life Coalition.

Bruinooge announced his new chairmanship in November, then, on December 29, published a widely reported and controversial op-ed in the National Post, “Why I Am Pro-Life,” in which he suggested that abortion was hindering population replacement and that fetuses had less rights than kidneys, because you can’t take out your kidney and sell it on eBay. (You can’t actually do that with your fetus either, by the way.) The article was welcomed by such writers as Andrea Mrozek of ProWomanProLife and the Institute of Marriage and Family, panned by more pragmatic conservative bloggers like Raphael Alexander, and angrily denounced by Shameless, the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, and others. In a particularly odd post, Dr. Roy suggested that “radical feminists” would dismiss Bruinooge’s remarks because he was of First Nations descent!

In running the caucus, the co-chairs are assisted by one and possibly more staffers, paid by a pool of money submitted by the MPs out of their legislative office budgets and given a desk in one of the chair’s offices. In 2001 Campaign Life Coalition lobbyist Tim Bloedow took the job, which he held for at least three years, though he remained in Vellacott’s office until 2007, moving over to John Earnshaw’s job as legislative assistant.

Bloedow’s Conservative Party duties were not so onerous, it seems, to prevent him from also running as a Christian Heritage Party candidate in 2004. He then went on to write the extremist website ChristianGovernment.ca, and is now the president of Equipping Christians for the Public Square. Bloedow, it must be said, has always been good at getting into apparent conflicts of interest: he worked as a Campaign Life lobbyist while also as a religious journalist, and more recently published grand praise of Vellacott on the website of the Association for Reformed Political Action without mentioning that he was working in Vellacott’s office and had been for years.

After Bloedow moved over to become Vellacott’s personal assistant, Barbara McAdorey, administrator of Canadian Physicians for Life, then moved in to take over some of his former duties. Among her activities as the caucus administrator, it seems, was supplying information to Lutherans for Life Canada in 2006 to help them in their attempt to win charitable status.

The caucus would also seem to maintain amiable relationships with various organizations within the religious right, and especially, pro-life, communities. Lloyd Mackey says that “pro-life volunteers” supply Caucus meetings with coffee and sandwiches. They have worked with, and heard presentations from, José Ruba of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, among others. Alberta Pro-Life has been invited, too. After Bruinooge’s National Post article came under fire, Joseph Ben-Ami of the Charles McVety-linked Institute for Canadian Values leaped to his defence, arguing unconvincingly that even though the Caucus’s membership was secret, the fact that it included both Liberals and Conservatives meant that it was open and bipartisan (great, more fucking bipartisanship).

Despite Bruinooge’s inflammatory and highly publicized remarks in December, the influence of the Caucus would seem to be waning – not that it was ever overly influential in the first place. Before the 2008 election, Campaign Life president Jim Hughes somberly lamented the loss of some of the caucus’s leading lights, including Wappel, Steckle, and Norman Doyle. Shortly after his retirement, Tom Wappel told a gathering of Catholic clergy organized by Campaign Life that the caucus had never properly cultivated relations with the Catholic community. It remains to be seen what will happen to this organization in the coming years.

Tomorrow I’ll be publishing a tentative list of known and suspected members of the Caucus as a public service, since the Caucus itself apparently feels no need to make that sort of information publicly known.

By July 25, 2008 blogger scrutiny began in earnest when unrepentant old hippie noticed chatter about a new poll by a company calling itself KLRVU.
The company, whose figures regarding Canadian approval contradicted reputable polling companies, had been hired by Campaign Life Coalition. The company data regarding Canadian opinion about The Order of Canada being given to Henry Morgentaler was noted at Lifesite and in a press release.
 
Plagiarism was found on the company website. KLRVU had taken a Survey US page, replaced the word America with Canada, and cut and paste the US site page, right down to the spelling mistakes.

Bouquets of Grey grabbed screen shots of both sites, highlighted the errors and pointed out the plagiarism.

Because the Survey US phone list didn’t work for Canada, KLRVU had to come up with something to explain their use of robot-calling for their surveys. Bouquets of Gray, July 25, 2008.

We have already pointed out that KLRVU has plagiarized a page of SurveyUSA and compared the two pages, with images of the opening paragraphs. The rest of the page is much the same–a rip-off of the SurveyUSA page, with minor changes.

But copying-and-pasting material and revising it for a new location is often trickier than one would assume, as can be seen in the section where KLRVu explains how it got your number.

News of the companies incompetence spread online and  Bouquet of Gray found more errors.

Here again, we see a few more changes. Most importantly, SSI is replaced by a Canadian company, Infolist Canada. Like SSI, Infolist Canada is described as the largest and most respected provider of data. But this is surely incorrect, since (as SurveyUSA tells us, SSI is the largest). Indeed, Infolist seems literally to have no public profile: no webpage, no phone number, no nothing.

By July 26, 2008 perhaps noticing all the cyber laughter and unwanted attention, Bruinrooge began to fix his KLR VU pages. It came to light his company had used infoCanada out of Mississauga for it’s phone list, not  Infolist Canada out of Toronto. Bouquets of Gray continued to methodically take KLRVU apart.

There’s a lot to be embarrassed about here. To his credit, however, Mr. Bruinooge has spent today trying to clean up the mess he created. Unfortunately, he hasn’t done a very good job of it. He has rewritten some of the text to remove the plagiarism. But he has not got it all, and what is left is a frightful mess: ungrammatical, incoherent, and unfocused.

The screenshots at Bouquet of Gray are worth taking a look at.

As Allan Bruinrooge tidied his new companies web presence, nothing could negate the reality his push poll had used robot calls and called what they had done, polling. 

And, what do you find there? A detailed description of “Voice Broadcasting”. What’s that, you ask?
Voice Broadcasting is a message delivery service that plays a pre-recorded message on a customer’s answering machine, voicemail service, or even to a “live” person. …
…Further down the page we learn
KLRVU specializes is supporting High Volume Voice Broadcasting customers. With an aggregate voice broadcasting capacity of more than a million minutes per hour KLRVU can provide you with that rare combination of unbounded capacity, low prices and exceptional service.

Most Canadians aren’t going to look at methodology. Lifesite and Campaign for Life Canada didn’t bother correcting their article and press release. 

To add insult to injury in an already badly handled push poll, a Campaign for Life Canada member went on radio apparently unaware the company they’d hired was being thoroughly investigated and discredited online.

As Bruinrooge went through the third clean up his website, he added something the end of July which no reputable company would dream of.
Klr Vu claimed that if people did not participate in it’s robot-calling poll you were skewing their polling. Declining to push a button in a Klr Vu robot-call was, according to Klr Vu, rescinding your chance and surrendering your voice to your next door neighbour.

Bouquets of Gray ends the dissection of the push polling company with a common sense question.

The point is that the result of a poll might be skewed if people don’t participate. But this is precisely the problem with KLRVU’s notorious Morgentaler poll. KLRVU claims to have called 157,115 Canadian households with the question
“Do you believe abortionist Henry Morgentaler deserves the Order of Canada?”
Of these 157,115, only 13,324 answered. But even if we accept KLRVU’s numbers (which seem inflated), 144,000 must feel like the hypothetical premier-hater in KLRVU’s example — they have not had their opinion recorded.
But the question has to be asked. If non-participation removes from citizens their voice and thereby undermines the validity of a poll, shouldn’t the 144,000 non-participants in KLRVU’s Mortengaler poll also discredit its results?

You’d think Klr Vu would have called it a day, but they didn’t. Once more they caught public attention in August 2008 when Allan Bruinrooge jumped into a political polling.  KLR VU set it’s robot-calling sights at a Guelph by-election. (The by-election was pre-empted by a federal election call in September 2008)

Reaction on political blogs was predictable.
Even David Aken picked up Klr Vu’s shoddy marketing and methodology. Allan Bruinrooge told Aken he targeted Guelph because he wanted to raise his company profile. Why would anyone hire a discredited company to poll for a by-election?  Scott Tribe, moderator of  The Progressive Bloggers aggregator wrote Allan Bruinrooge about his Guelph poll methodology and also received a response.  Bruinrooge joined The Blogging Tories in July, but never posted.

One of the questions raised in the investigation of Klr Vu’s Morgantaler poll and the Guelph by-election poll is why Allan Bruinrooge claimed membership in the MIRA.
There is no listing for his company on the corporate membership page of The Marketing Research & Intelligence Association. Klr Vu states on it’s webpage that Allan Bruinrooge is an individual member of the MIRA.

Have you blogged about Klr Vu? Drop us a line and let us know if we can use and link your post in full or in part.

Big Blue Wave
Democratic Space
Blogging Horse

Online reaction was swift. While reputable companies such as Ispos Reid polls indicated a majority of Canadians agreed with the decision, overnight an unknown company calling itself KRLVU Research disagreed, and began to be talked about on social conservative sites.  By July 22, 2008 Lifesite News announced that Campaign Life Coalition had discovered 55.8% of Canadians surveyed by KLRVU polling opposed Dr. Henry Morgentaler receiving the Order of Canada.

It quickly became apparent to bloggers who follow social conservative bloggers concerned with life and gender issues that the poll  had cut come from a fly by night company which cut and pasted a US survey form, and used a fully automated phone-polling system to gather opinion. One of the first bloggers to wonder if this new company was push polling (freeping) was  unrepentant old hippie.

Massive poll a massive scam?

Woohoo, we’re rollin’ in polls!

It’s been two weeks since polls done by Ipsos Reid and Angus Reid showed that 2/3 of Canadians support Dr. Morgentaler’s Order of Canada. I was expecting anti-choicers to respond before now with some negative poll results they were able to glean through a combination of subterfuge and sleaze. So when I saw them crowing about a Massive Poll out today that said “56% of Canadians oppose Morgentaler Order of Canada”, I thought “What took ya?”. Oh well, it’s summer for fetus fetishists too.

This latest poll was commissioned by “Campaign Life Coaltion”. It’s funny that when Canwest, a media chain with no agenda, commissions a poll, it comes out in favour; but when CLC, an anti-abortion group, commissions a poll, it gets the opposite results. Huh!? Indeed! Any poll about Morgentaler commissioned by an anti-abortion group lacks credibility for obvious reasons, and Birth Pangs takes the thing out to the woodshed here.

But never mind that, there are some other things bothering me about this poll. Although Campaign Life (who would never lie) says the question asked was a simple

“Do you believe abortionist Henry Morgentaler deserves the Order of Canada Press 1 for Yes Press 2 for No”

…we don’t know that, do we? And unlike the Ipsos-Reid and Angus Reid polls, there’s no way of checking it out. Why not? You’d think “KLRVU Polling”, the research company out of Winnipeg who did the poll, could clear it up in one quick phone call, and they probably could… if they had a phone.

The phone number for KLRVU Research belonged to a Winnipeg business called Lasercut Designs. Lasercut Designs was run by the brother and sister-in-law of  Winnipeg South Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge. Alan Bruinooge had run for Winnipeg City Council in 2005.

Bloggers began to take notice of the unrepentant old hippie research into KRLVU.

Creekside
BigCityLib
Birth Pangs  notes the tie in with Campaign Life Coalition (Canada) and Operation Rescue (US)

Part 2 Blogs investigate KLRVU Research